Add Library Panel

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the panel is linked rather than copied, so update_visualization mutates it across every dashboard. It does not say what happens when the visualization is already present on the dashboard, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the key distinguishing behavior (linked, not copied) front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description covers the linking semantics and the space parameter. The one gap is duplicate/already-present behavior, which is relevant for a non-idempotent add operation.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it explains that `space` targets a Kibana space by id and defaults to the default space, adding meaning the bare pattern/default in the schema does not convey. The remaining two required params are self-documenting by name and required status.

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 ('Show a library visualization on an existing dashboard') and immediately distinguishes itself from generic panel tools via 'linked, not copied'. An agent can tell this apart from add_panel and the add_esql_* siblings from the description alone.

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 establishes the context (existing dashboard, linked library visualization) but never says when to choose this over add_panel or the esql panel variants, nor what the prerequisites are. Usage is implied by the resource type rather than stated.

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