superset_dashboard_embedded_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the direct consequence ('can no longer be embedded via iframe'), which adds useful context, but it omits other behavioral aspects such as reversibility, required permissions, or idempotency.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies the effect, and the Args section is minimal and useful. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate: it covers the purpose and outcome. However, it lacks any information about error handling, idempotency (e.g., what happens if embedding is already disabled), or prerequisites. Since an output schema exists, omitting return values is acceptable, but behavioral edge cases are still 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only restates the parameter name as 'Dashboard ID', which adds little beyond the property name 'dashboard_id'. It does not clarify the meaning or provide any additional semantic context, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 names the specific action ('Disable dashboard embedding') with a resource (dashboard embedded mode) and explains the tangible consequence ('can no longer be embedded via iframe'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like embedded_get or embedded_set.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any mention of related operations like set or get. The purpose statement implies usage, but the description does not provide contextual 'when' or 'when not to' advice.

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