ha_save_dashboard_config

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Overwrite' implies destructive action, but no details on validation, error conditions, or effects on existing configuration. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the verb.

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?

One clear sentence, no waste. Could be slightly improved by separating usage from purpose, but it remains efficient 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?

No output schema, complex nested config object, and no annotations. Description fails to mention return value, validation, or conditions. For a mutation tool, missing guidance on response and prerequisites makes it incomplete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds 'complete config with views and cards' which reinforces the schema but does not add significant new meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'save/overwrite' and resource 'full Lovelace configuration of a dashboard'. It includes 'views and cards' to specify scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ha_get_dashboard_config (read) and ha_create_dashboard (create new).

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 implies use when replacing entire configuration, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like ha_update_dashboard for incremental updates. No usage context or prerequisites are provided.

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