grafana_adicionar_painel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the panel is appended or replaces something, whether the mutation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how the query/datasource defaults are resolved — all critical for a write operation on a live dashboard.

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?

A single short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but the '13.' list-number prefix is a formatting artifact that adds nothing, and the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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 a write operation with 7 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks everything needed to populate the panel 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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It only obliquely implies uid_dashboard and titulo; the five remaining parameters (tipo, unidade, consulta, datasource_uid, datasource_tipo) and their defaults are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Adicionar um novo painel a um dashboard existente'), so an agent can immediately tell this creates a panel rather than updating or removing one. It does not name the adjacent siblings (grafana_atualizar_painel, grafana_remover_painel) explicitly, and the leading '13.' numbering is noise rather than clarification.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus grafana_atualizar_painel, grafana_configurar_visualizacao, or grafana_gerar_dashboard_por_prompt, nor any prerequisite such as the dashboard UID needing to exist. The 'dashboard existente' phrase only weakly implies a precondition; everything else must be inferred.

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