grafana_configurar_visualizacao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only implies a mutation. It does not say whether existing visualization options are replaced or merged, whether permissions on the dashboard are required, or what the response contains. Only the enumeration of visualization types adds real behavioral signal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. The only defect is the stray list numbering ('17.') that adds nothing and slightly obscures the opening verb.

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 annotations, an opaque 'opcoes' object parameter, and an output schema the caller must interpret, the description is too thin. It never explains what shape opcoes takes or how the tool interacts with the panel's existing state, which an agent would need 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 coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It does partially by effectively enumerating accepted tipo_visualizacao values, which the schema lacks as an enum, but says nothing about uid_dashboard, id_painel, or the free-form 'opcoes' object, which is the most important and least constrained parameter.

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 in Portuguese: configuring a panel's visualization type and visual options, with example types (line, bar, stat, gauge, table). The purpose is unmistakable, but nothing distinguishes it from overlapping siblings such as grafana_atualizar_painel or grafana_configurar_limites_cores, and the leading '17.' is stray numbering noise.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of grafana_atualizar_painel, grafana_adicionar_painel, or grafana_configurar_limites_cores, which all plausibly touch the same panel. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the dashboard and panel must already exist.

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