openpanel_update_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose mutation behavior details. It does not clarify this is a partial update (only name/description are optional), what happens to unspecified properties, error behavior if the dashboard doesn't exist, or return value structure.

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 brief (one sentence), but includes the '[UNIFIED]' prefix which appears to be metadata cruft rather than helpful semantic content. Given the lack of structured documentation elsewhere, this extreme brevity represents under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% input schema coverage, a 5-parameter mutation tool requires substantially more descriptive context. The description omits critical operational context like partial update semantics, required identifiers, and success/failure indicators.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the full burden of explaining parameters. While 'properties' loosely maps to the 'name' and 'description' fields, it completely fails to explain the three required identifier parameters (site, project_id, dashboard_id) or their relationships.

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 the basic action ('Update') and resource ('dashboard properties'), matching the tool name. However, it provides minimal differentiation from siblings like 'create_dashboard' or 'duplicate_dashboard' regarding when to use an update versus create/duplicate operation.

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 usage guidance provided. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the dashboard must exist), when to prefer this over recreating a dashboard, or how to locate the correct dashboard_id.

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