create_dashboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), content type (multipart/form-data), serialization details for 'content', and the required configuration flag. It does not discuss failure modes, rate limits, or authentication beyond the config requirement, but the provided details add significant transparency.

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 compact (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: creation flow, parameter constraints, and configuration prerequisite. It could mention the expected response (e.g., returns dashboard ID or object), but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning: it clarifies that 'content' and 'contentPath' are mutually exclusive, explains how 'content' is serialized and sent in the multipart request, and emphasizes the 'not both' constraint. This goes well beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Create a new dashboard (WRITE)' and specifies it sends a multipart/form-data POST per the Document Service spec. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dashboard, update_dashboard, and delete_dashboard via the verb 'Create' and the explicit write indication.

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 provides explicit guidelines: content must be provided inline via 'content' OR from a file via 'contentPath' (not both), and 'Requires DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true'. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_dashboard, but the clear write constraint and mutual exclusivity offer solid usage guidance.

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