writeDashboard

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so richly: states that only data is replaced on an existing page, that older-template pages get migrated while keeping layout, that a replaced page is kept as <file>.bak, that `notes` are server-escaped and capped at 5, and that `preview` writes nothing. This is exactly the mutation/overwrite/backup context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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?

Nearly every sentence carries information, but the text is a dense wall of backticked parameter references with no front-loading of the core use case beyond the first sentence and no bullet or grouping structure. It is readable only if parsed linearly, which hurts fast scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the digest contents (totals, weekly sums, load, best efforts, races, strength top sets, HRV, recovery, fitness age, sync) and explains result fields like `pageLanguages`, `settings`, `missingProfileLanguage` and `missingWidgetTexts` including the sibling call that fixes each. For a 7-param tool with a nested settings object, this is 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the `page` marker block requirement, `layout` preset-vs-blank semantics, `settings` replacing (not merging) the page's own values, and `weeks` default of 12. It stops short of elaborating several nested `settings` fields that the schema already covers.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Writes the training dashboard page') plus its default path and return value (path + digest). It also distinguishes itself implicitly from editDashboard by referencing that sibling for languages/widgetTexts edits, though the read-only counterpart (getDashboardData) is never named to sharpen the boundary.

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 clear selection logic for its own modes: `layout` vs `page`, `preview: true` for a dry run, and routing to editDashboard for `languages` and `widgetTexts`. It lacks explicit 'when not to use this / use getDashboardData instead' guidance, so the alternative for reading is left to inference.

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