superset_dashboard_embedded_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action is an enable/configure operation and discloses important behavior for allowed_domains ('Empty list = all domains'), but it does not describe whether existing embed settings are overwritten, the effect of null vs empty list, or any security considerations for allowing all domains.

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, with a front-loaded statement of purpose followed by a clear Args section. Each sentence contributes useful information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description leaves a significant ambiguity: allowed_domains has a default of null in the schema, but the description only explains empty list behavior. It is unclear whether null means no domains, all domains, or leaves current settings unchanged. It also does not mention whether calling this tool overwrites existing embed configuration, which is important for a setter tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful detail for allowed_domains (list of domains, examples, empty list behavior), but dashboard_id is only described as 'Dashboard ID,' which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 the tool's function: 'Enable dashboard embedding (embedded mode) and configure allowed domains.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and is distinct from the sibling tools (e.g., embedded_get, embedded_delete).

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 explains the consequence of using the tool ('Once enabled, the dashboard can be embedded via iframe on the specified domains') which implies the use case, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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