manage_dashboard

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: changes are validated and require a two-step confirmation, which explains the confirm_token parameter and warns the agent that a mutation is not immediate. That said, it never states which operations are destructive or irreversible (the annotations flag destructiveHint=true), nor whether the preview step is mandatory for every mutating operation. With annotations already declaring the safety profile, this partial disclosure earns a middle score.

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, front-loaded with the resource and verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's nine operations.

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 ten-parameter, nine-operation, destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: which operations require the confirm token, what delete does to widgets and sharing, and how errors from validation surface. The two-step confirmation note is the only behavioral anchor provided.

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 90%, so per-parameter meaning is already well documented in the schema itself, including which operation each field applies to. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the two-step confirmation hint, so 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?

The description names a verb (create/edit) and a resource (Zabbix dashboards), so the general purpose is legible. However, the tool actually exposes nine operations including list, get, set_sharing, replace_pages and delete, and the description covers only creation and editing. An agent reading only the description would not expect read or delete capability from this tool.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as dashboard_widget_catalog or zabbix_visualization, nor on which operation fits which situation. The operation enum in the schema implies the choices, but the description itself offers no selection criteria or prerequisites.

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