Dashboards: update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious details beyond them: widgets absent from a new list are removed, only the owner can change sharing, and the response is JSON. It stops short of describing permissions needed for other fields or how partial updates interact with untouched fields.

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?

Well front-loaded: the capability and the destructive consequence come first, then alternatives, then the confirmation warning. The first sentence and the following 'Changes a dashboard's name, description or sharing...' clause partially restate each other, a mild redundancy in an otherwise efficient block.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the safety-warning, ownership constraint, alternative routing, and the replace-vs-add semantics. With annotations and full schema coverage in place, nothing material for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter; baseline is 3. The description adds consequence-level meaning for `config` (whole-list replacement and silent removal of omitted widgets) and the owner-only restriction on sharing, which helps an agent reason about the call rather than just the syntax.

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?

Opens with specific verbs and resource: rename a dashboard, change its visibility, or replace its widgets and layout. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from dashboards_add_chart and dashboards_remove_widget by contrasting 'replace its whole widget list' with 'add or remove one chart'.

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?

Names the alternative tools and the exact condition that selects them ('To add or remove one chart, use `dashboards_add_chart` or `dashboards_remove_widget`, which keep everything else'). It also adds a prerequisite/confirm step: check with the user before running it because it changes or deletes existing data.

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