Add Tracker cycle-time widget

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a created widget is returned, which is useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about authorization scope, duplicate behavior, or side effects on the parent dashboard.

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 short sentences, the create action front-loaded and the prerequisite placed second. No filler, no repetition of the title or the schema.

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 2-parameter create tool with annotations and a fully documented nested body, the essentials are present, and the return-value note compensates for the absent output schema. It stops just short of the prerequisite/permission context that a mutation on a shared dashboard might warrant.

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 the nested body documents end/start/formula, mode, filter, filterId, from/toStatuses, autoUpdatable and description individually. The description's only parameter-level contribution is where dashboard_id comes from, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Add a cycle-time widget to a Tracker dashboard') plus the effect on the caller ('returns the created widget'). The widget-creation action is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tracker_dashboards_create, so an agent can route 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?

It gives one actionable prerequisite ('Get dashboard_id from dashboards_create'), which is real routing guidance. However, it never says when this tool should be used vs. not used, nor mentions alternatives (e.g. other widget types or tracker_boards_* tools), leaving usage largely implied.

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