add_dashboard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the default layout value, what each layout mode produces, the fallback semantics of 'auto', and the exact inline schema for a native set control. It stops short of stating permissions, error handling, or effects on any pre-existing dashboard, which leaves a residual gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then organizes workflow and layout options under clear headers with no filler sentences. It is longer than most definitions but each block (workflow steps, layout modes, skill pointer) earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers creation flow, layout representation, and prerequisites. The only meaningful omission is guidance on width/height and how worksheet_names interacts with the layout, but for the core call the agent has everything it needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly documents the layout parameter (file path, dict tree, preset strings, set_control format) and implies worksheet_names and dashboard_name through the workflow, but width and height are never mentioned anywhere, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a dashboard combining multiple worksheets.' It is unambiguously distinguished from siblings like generate_layout_json (which produces the layout artifact) and add_dashboard_action/add_dashboard_extension (which augment an existing dashboard).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit numbered workflow naming the prerequisite tools (list_worksheets, generate_layout_json) and when to hand off a layout file vs pass an inline dict. It also gives a clear when-to-use rule per layout value ('auto' only for simple vertical fallbacks; use dict/file for mixed layouts).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.