update_grid

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), that widgets are preserved, and that out-of-bounds sizes are rejected. It stops short of noting the destructive implication of shrinking a grid that holds widgets, or the preview/confirm safety flow that lives only in the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence earns its place by adding constraint and preservation semantics. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, partial-update behavior, and validation rejection. The one meaningful omission is that changes are gated behind a confirm/preview step, which is documented in the schema but not in the description.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning: 'omitted fields stay unchanged' explains the null defaults on name/row_count/column_count, and 'rename or resize' maps the verbs to those parameters. It does not, however, surface the confirm/preview parameter behavior.

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 states a specific verb pair and resource: 'Rename or resize a dashboard grid'. The mutating scope is unambiguous and distinct from read-side siblings like get_grid and list_grids, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

'Omitted fields stay unchanged' implies partial-update usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of create_grid/delete_grid, and no mention of prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the name and the mutation semantics.

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