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 entire layout, that `widgets` persists into <data-dir>/widgets.json and propagates to every page from the template, and that `forgetWidgets` is more destructive than `removeWidgets` (library plus page). It does not state reversibility, error behavior, or whether changes are saved atomically, which for a 10-parameter mutation tool is the remaining gap.

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 the verb and resource, then one clause per parameter. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries a distinct semantic or side-effect detail, though the inline JSON examples make it longer than strictly necessary for an agent that can read the schema.

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 10-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the side effects of each parameter, the template/library propagation model, and — critically — what the argument-less read call returns (layout, widgets, missing texts, widget catalogue, widgetApi), substituting for the absent output schema.

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 already 80%, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema cannot: add-vs-replace semantics for `place`/`layout`, page-vs-library scope for `removeWidgets`/`forgetWidgets`, and worked examples for `widgetTexts` and `languages` including the singular/plural "|" convention and the English fallback. Only `path` and `englishTexts` are left to the schema, which documents both.

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 and resource with scope: it edits the layout, custom widgets or languages of a dashboard page derived from a template. It also disambiguates from the sibling writeDashboard by naming it as a prerequisite, and it discloses the no-argument read mode, so an agent knows exactly what surface the tool covers.

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 a concrete precondition ("a page from the template; call writeDashboard first") and clarifies that calling with no arguments is a read, not a write. What's missing is explicit guidance on when to choose editDashboard over writeDashboard/scheduleDashboardRefresh for a given change, so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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