Update Dashboard

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: widget replacement behavior, return value ('Returns: The updated dashboard object'), and parameter semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately sized with a clear structure: purpose, important warning, args listing, return value. It is front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly more concise but remains effective.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, the description covers return value and the critical widget replacement behavior. It also mentions an alternative tool. Slightly missing explicit mention of idempotency (covered by annotation) but otherwise complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by summarizing parameters and highlighting the replacement semantics for widgets, which is not fully captured in the schema description. This provides added clarity beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing dashboard's properties and/or widgets,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool appd_add_widget_to_dashboard by noting that providing widgets replaces all existing ones, making it clear when to use each.

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 explicitly warns that providing widgets replaces all existing widgets and directs users to appd_add_widget_to_dashboard for adding a single widget without losing others. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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