grafana_atualizar_dashboard

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 implies a mutation of an existing object but says nothing about whether the supplied definition replaces the dashboard wholesale, what happens to fields not supplied, whether a commit message or version history is required, or what permissions/irreversibility apply.

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?

One short sentence, so there is no wasted prose, but the leading '6.' is a leftover list-numbering artifact that adds noise, and the terseness comes at the cost of missing information rather than being efficient.

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?

The tool is a mutation with a nested object parameter, four parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions; an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description does not cover the destructive-overwrite semantics, folder targeting, or commit-message behavior that an agent needs before invoking it.

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 four parameters, including a nested free-form 'dashboard' object. The phrase 'a definição de um dashboard existente' loosely hints that the 'dashboard' parameter carries the new definition, but pasta_id, pasta_uid, and mensagem_commit are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource: updating the definition of an existing dashboard, in Portuguese. An agent can tell it is a dashboard-mutation tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as grafana_atualizar_painel, grafana_criar_dashboard, or grafana_mover_dashboard.

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 only implied guidance is that the dashboard must already exist. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus grafana_criar_dashboard or grafana_atualizar_painel, and no prerequisites such as permissions or validation steps are mentioned.

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