add_panel

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful context about spaces and existing dashboards, but does not describe what happens on repeated calls, whether multiple panels can be added, or how failures affect the dashboard. No contradiction with 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. It communicates the main behavior and one key parameter nuance without repetition.

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 tool with a complex nested panel object, the description covers the basics but omits workflow guidance such as needing `data_view` to exist, how this relates to the ES|QL panel tools, or whether a dashboard must be fetched first. The schema and annotations carry much of the load, so it is viable, but it has clear contextual gaps.

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?

The description adds real value for the `space` parameter by explaining it targets a Kibana space by id and defaults to the default space. The nested panel definition is rich and well-described in the schema, so the limited description is less harmful, but `dashboard_id` receives no added semantic detail beyond the tool description.

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 action: 'Add a visualization panel to an existing dashboard.' This is a specific verb + resource and communicates the core purpose well. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `add_esql_metric_panel` or `add_esql_table_panel`, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'to an existing dashboard' implies the dashboard must already exist, and the space note gives targeting context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as `create_dashboard`, `create_visualization`, or the `add_esql_*` tools.

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