Create Tracker dashboard

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds genuinely non-derivable lifecycle context: the response carries the id for widget attachment, and the created dashboard cannot be deleted via ycli. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotations, though auth/permission requirements go unstated.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by a clearly demarcated NOTE. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter create tool with nested body, the description covers the essential return contract (id for widget attachment) and an important lifecycle caveat, despite there being no output schema. It omits permission/auth expectations and what a 'personal' dashboard scope implies, keeping it short of a 5.

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%, so name, owner and layout are fully documented in the schema itself (including the owner default and layout enum values). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (personal Tracker dashboard), plus a distinguishing scope qualifier ('personal') that separates it from the sibling dashboard/widget tools. An agent can identify what this does without opening the 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?

Implies the correct workflow by stating the returned id is 'used to add widgets,' pointing the agent toward tracker_dashboards_add_cycle_time_widget as the next step. The NOTE also gives a clear usage caveat (deletion must happen in the UI). No explicit when-not or named alternative, so not a 5.

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