editDashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that layout replaces the whole layout, that widgets saves into the shared library affecting every template page, and that forgetWidgets removes from the library while removeWidgets only affects this page. It doesn't cover auth/permission needs or reversibility, but the destructive-vs-scoped distinctions are clearly surfaced.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, then the read-mode caveat, then per-parameter detail — a sensible ordering for a 10-param tool. It is dense and adjective-free, though the single dense paragraph with inline examples makes it slightly heavy to scan; a list per parameter would read faster. Every sentence still carries operational meaning.

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 complex 10-param, 0-required, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it documents the read-mode return payload (layout, widgets, missing texts, catalogue, widgetApi), the write semantics of each parameter, and the persistence side effects. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 80% so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains place as 'adds widgets at the end of a board', the scroll/layout replace semantics, the widget library persistence, the '|' singular/plural text convention, and missing-texts-fall-back-to-English. Concrete JSON examples for widgetTexts and languages further clarify the nested shape beyond 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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Changes the layout, the custom widgets or the languages of the dashboard page') and immediately clarifies it operates on a template page requiring writeDashboard first. The dual read/write nature is spelled out ('Without arguments it only reads'), so an agent can tell exactly what this does versus writeDashboard.

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?

Gives the key precondition ('call writeDashboard first') and an explicit no-argument read mode with a description of what it returns. It further explains per-parameter intent (layout replaces, place appends, widgets add-or-replace, removeWidgets vs forgetWidgets scope). It stops short of enumerating when NOT to use it or pointing to siblings like showDashboard for other tasks.

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