grafana_duplicar_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 write operation that creates a new dashboard while leaving the original intact, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the copy inherits folder/tags/permissions, or what happens when the target folder is not specified — all material for a mutating tool.

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 sentence with no padding, but it opens with a stray list marker ("8.") that is an artifact of source documentation and adds noise to the front of the definition. The core content is efficiently delivered once past that.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the definition still leaves an agent without folder-targeting semantics, permission requirements, or a routing rule against sibling creation tools. For a three-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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 three parameters, and the description only loosely gestures at two of them (uid_origem, novo_titulo). The third parameter, nova_pasta_id, and the meaning of its default value 0 (same folder as source? root folder?) are documented nowhere.

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 ("Duplicar um dashboard existente") plus the outcome (new title and UID), so an agent can tell this is a copy operation rather than a create-from-scratch one. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like grafana_criar_dashboard or grafana_gerar_dashboard_por_prompt, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 usage signal is implicit in the verb "duplicar"; there is no statement of when to prefer this over grafana_criar_dashboard or grafana_gerar_dashboard_por_prompt, and no prerequisites (e.g., source dashboard must exist, permission needed on the target folder). The agent must guess at routing.

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