Update Dashboard

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation. It never says whether this is a full replacement (all five params are required, strongly implying widgets not resubmitted are lost), what happens to an invalid dashboardId, what permissions are needed, or what is returned. The example illustrates payload shape but discloses nothing about side effects.

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 core action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by tightly scoped bullets and a single illustrative call. The example earns its place by showing a markdown widget inside the widgets array, though it also carries the minor cost of not illustrating any of the other widget types.

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 mutation on a complex nested schema with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still has to guess replacement semantics, failure modes and return value. The description is sufficient to construct a call but leaves gaps that matter for a destructive update.

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 the nested widget, graph, layout and range structures are already documented in structured data; baseline 3 applies. The worked example slightly reinforces the widget shape but adds no semantics about required-or-not fields or defaults beyond what the schema states.

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 (update) and resource (dashboard identified by ID) within a named product. The use-when bullets narrow it to title/memo/urlPath and widget configuration, which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings get_dashboard and list_dashboards.

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?

Two explicit 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN USERS' conditions give clear context for invocation. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. 'to create or delete a dashboard use X', 'call get_dashboard first to retrieve existing widgets'), so the routing guidance is directional but incomplete.

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