update_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a WRITE operation, uses PATCH, requires optimistic locking (version), and needs the feature flag DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true. It also notes the multipart/form-data format. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each delivering essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and then adds constraints and prerequisites efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers input constraints, prerequisites, and behavior. It lacks any description of the return value or success/failure indicators, but given the complexity and existing schema, it is reasonably complete for an agent to use 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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, the description adds critical context beyond the schema, such as the requirement for optimistic locking via 'version', the mutual exclusivity of content and contentPath, and the feature flag prerequisite. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool updates an existing dashboard, distinguishes it from create_dashboard by mentioning 'Update an existing dashboard', and specifies that it uses PATCH with multipart/form-data. It clearly identifies the resource and action.

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 clear when-to-use guidance by stating 'Update an existing dashboard' and lists required prerequisites (optimistic locking version, feature flag DT_ENABLE_WRITES). It also notes that at least one of name, content, or contentPath must be provided. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or compare it to other update-specific siblings.

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