grafana_criar_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 and mostly fails it. "Validado" hints that the dashboard is validated before saving, but nothing explains what happens when a dashboard with the same name exists, how the overwrite flag affects existing content, or whether creation is reversible.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but it opens with a stray "5." numbering artifact that signals a truncated copy-paste, and the single sentence is under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, five undocumented parameters, and a nested object payload, the description is nowhere near sufficient. The presence of an output schema only excuses return-value documentation, not the missing creation, folder-placement, and overwrite semantics.

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% and there are five parameters, including a nested free-form dashboard object. The description mentions none of them — not pasta_id/pasta_uid (folder targeting), not sobrescrever (overwrite semantics), not mensagem_commit (version history) — and says nothing about the shape of the dashboard payload.

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 ("Criar um novo dashboard") in Grafana, which is enough for an agent to know this is a create operation. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings like grafana_duplicar_dashboard, grafana_gerar_dashboard_por_prompt, or grafana_atualizar_dashboard, and the wording "validado" is ambiguous about whether validation is performed implicitly.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the folder exist?), and no mention of alternatives for creating dashboards. The agent must infer everything from the name and the sibling list.

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