Reorder Dashboards

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the order is fully replaced or how unlisted dashboards are handled. The description provides no new behavioral insight beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is concise: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a brief parameter definition. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary wording. The only minor issue is the embedded 'Args:' block format, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple reorder operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core information needed. However, it omits edge-case behavior, such as whether all dashboards must be included or how partial lists are handled. The tool is straightforward, but the description could be more complete with a note on ordering 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explicitly defining the parameter: 'ordered_names: Dashboard names in the desired order.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'array of strings' type. It clearly explains what the parameter represents and how to use it.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the display order of dashboards.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_dashboards, save_dashboard, or delete_dashboard. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action without explaining prerequisites (e.g., dashboards must exist) or how it relates to other dashboard operations. The usage context is heavily implied rather than stated.

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