create_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool optionally overwrites an existing dashboard and allows setting permissions (ACL), which are key behavioral aspects. However, it omits details like required permissions, side effects, or error behavior, making transparency adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary action, the second explains input formats and optional features. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with key information.

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 tool's 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core intent, input formats, optional overwrite, and ACL. It does not mention return values, uniqueness constraints, or validation rules, but for a creation tool these are secondary. The description is reasonably complete for effective usage.

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 covers all 12 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by clarifying that 'definition' accepts either Classic Simple XML (string) or Dashboard Studio JSON (object/string) via eai:data, which is not captured in the schema's type description. This reduces ambiguity for the agent.

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 creates a dashboard in Splunk, names the input formats (Classic XML, Studio JSON), and mentions optional overwrite and ACL. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools that create other resources like configs or saved searches.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other create tools (e.g., create_config, create_saved_search) or when to choose between input formats. It lacks context such as prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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