add_esql_metric_panel

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the query is not validated server-side, a wrong query or column produces an empty panel, and the space parameter targets a Kibana space by id with a default. This gives the agent essential expectations about failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first, followed by useful examples, a sibling-tool pointer, a warning, and a space parameter note. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary padding.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations are all false, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, failure modes, and relationship to add_panel. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining `esql` and `column` with concrete examples and clarifying `space`'s default behavior. `dashboard_id` and `title` are not explicitly described, but their meaning is strongly implied by 'existing dashboard' and 'panel title' context.

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 states a specific action: 'Add an ES|QL metric panel to an existing dashboard', and clearly describes the core behavior (run query, show one output column as a single-number metric). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_panel by saying field-based charts should use add_panel with a VizSpec instead.

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 explicitly gives an alternative: 'For field-based charts use add_panel with a VizSpec instead.' It also provides practical usage guidance by warning that the query is not validated server-side and that wrong input yields an empty panel.

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