Save a dashboard definition

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the prerequisite of +Validation and the purpose of persistence, but lacks details on overwrite behavior or return state.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence covers purpose, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

Given the number of parameters (8) and full schema coverage, the description explains the core concept and key constraint. It could mention what the tool returns or connect to sibling daxops_list_dashboards, but is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described. The description adds value by grouping parameters (name, solution-or-sourceId, pages/branding) and specifying the mutual exclusivity of sourceId and solution, which is not in the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool saves a reusable dashboard definition with key components (name, solution-or-sourceId, pages, branding), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like daxops_build by focusing on saving for later reuse.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Provide exactly one of sourceId or solution' and 'Requires the +Validation feature.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like daxops_build.

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