add_dashboard_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It adds no information about permissions, persistence, side effects, or how the added action affects the dashboard. The only extra detail is a serialization format for clear_value, which is parameter semantics rather than behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is two short paragraphs with no wasted words, and the first sentence front-loads the action types the tool supports. It is appropriately concise for a structured schema, though the second paragraph’s serialization note is tightly scoped to one case.

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?

Given a 17-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lists action types and one parameter format, but leaves most parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral expectations unaddressed. The existence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation, but not the missing input and behavioral context.

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% across 17 parameters, and the description only explains three parameters (source_field, target_parameter, clear_value) and only for the action_type='parameter' case. The remaining 14 parameters, including required dashboard_name and action_type, receive no additional semantic guidance beyond their titles.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('dashboard action'), and enumerates the action types it supports (filter, highlight, URL, navigation, parameter). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like initialize_dashboard_filter_action or add_dashboard_set_action, leaving an agent to infer when this broad action tool is preferred.

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?

The description gives a conditional parameter requirement for action_type='parameter' but provides no overall guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the filter- or set-specific action tools. There is no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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