Dashboards: remove widget

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true generically; the description sharpens the blast radius by stating that 'everything else on the dashboard stays as it was' and that the underlying chart 'is kept and can be added back'. That non-destructive-to-the-chart nuance is the exact behavioral detail an agent needs and cannot derive from the hints alone.

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-loaded with the action, then scope, then alternatives, then the safety warning — a good ordering. 'Returns JSON' is low-value filler that repeats what is implied and slightly dilutes an otherwise tight passage.

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?

For a two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, preservation semantics, id sourcing, alternative tools, and a user-confirmation caveat. No output schema exists, so it needn't describe return values, and nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in-schema. The description's 'Get widget ids from `dashboards_get`' adds a mild pointer to where ids come from, but otherwise the schema carries the parameter semantics — baseline 3.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a widget from a dashboard'), and the body distinguishes this from adjacent operations by naming `dashboards_add_chart` (re-add) and `charts_delete` (delete the chart entirely). An agent can pick this tool over its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing: use this to detach a widget, use `charts_delete` 'only to remove the chart from the project entirely', and use `dashboards_get` to source ids. It even states a prerequisite workflow (confirm with the user before running) — nothing is left to inference.

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