add_dashboard_extension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about side effects, permissions, whether it requires an existing dashboard, or how the extension is positioned/rendered. Only the existence of 'manifest and settings' is disclosed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no waste and a front-loaded verb. It is concise but under-specified rather than densely informative, so it sits at minimum-viable.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but for a mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, the manifest schema expectations, and positioning semantics.

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 coverage is 0% with 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely names 'manifest' and 'settings' but says nothing about dashboard_name, x, y, width, height, or the expected shape/structure of the manifest object, leaving most 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 ('Add') and resource ('native dashboard extension'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many dashboard siblings like add_dashboard, add_dashboard_action, or add_dashboard_toggle_button, leaving the agent to infer when 'extension' is the right choice.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., must the dashboard already exist?), and no mention of alternatives among the crowded dashboard siblings. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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