publish_dashboard

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that: it specifies that ALL existing dashboard content is replaced and that viewers see the new version immediately. This is exactly the impact-level detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool, and it is consistent with the annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the warning follows, and the numbered best-practice list is scannable and actionable. The four-step list is slightly verbose for a 3-parameter tool, but every line carries operational value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers what remains: the destructive semantics, the audience impact, the recovery path, and the recommended pre-flight steps. Nothing essential to invoking this tool safely 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 description coverage is 100%, so dashboard_id and source_analysis_id are already fully documented. The description adds only a weak hint ('publish with a descriptive version_description'), which is largely redundant with the schema's own example. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (publish) and resource pair (analysis → existing dashboard), naming both source and target. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like clone_analysis, backup_analysis, or get_dashboard_versions without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly provides a when-to-use workflow and names the alternatives at each step: clone_analysis to test, backup_analysis to back up, rollback_dashboard to recover. It even flags the prerequisite that the analysis must be tested thoroughly first, leaving little to inference.

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