Connect Grafana annotation bridge

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and may interact with the external world (openWorldHint). The description adds 'token-safety notes' which is useful context, but does not explain side effects like file creation or whether Grafana credentials are required. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It includes relevant details without excessive verbosity. Loses a point because the phrase 'scaffold' is also in the tool name and the list of maps could be clearer.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, this description is too brief. It does not explain what the maps represent, what the scaffold produces, or how parameters like adapter_mode and base_url affect behavior. The tool is more complex than the description conveys.

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 only 25% (2 of 8 parameters described). The description mentions dashboard, panel, tag, and annotation maps but does not connect these to specific parameters like base_url, dashboard_uid, tag_count, or panel_count. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool creates a Grafana annotation/event-marker scaffold with maps and token-safety notes. The verb 'create' and specific resource distinguish it from generic siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar connect tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Siblings include many connect_* tools, so context for when to choose this scaffold would be valuable.

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