Add Panel

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds the additive/'existing dashboard' constraint and the space-targeting semantics, but says nothing about failure behavior, duplicate handling, or what happens when a panel reference is invalid.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious parameter note. No filler or restatement of the name, and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 and the nested panel schema is rich, so return values and parameter structure need not be re-explained. What is missing is the routing context: for a tool with three near-identical ES|QL panel siblings and an update_panel sibling, the description should say when this generic panel builder is the right choice. Adequate but with a clear 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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (dashboard_id and panel carry no top-level description), but the nested `panel` object is documented in exhaustive detail in the schema, and dashboard_id is self-evident. The description compensates for exactly one parameter, `space`, by explaining its meaning and default, which is useful but partial given the low coverage.

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 verb and resource ('Add a visualization panel to an existing dashboard'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like add_esql_metric_panel, add_esql_table_panel, add_esql_xy_panel, or create_visualization, so an agent cannot tell which add-panel variant applies without opening the schemas.

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 context given is the `space` default behavior. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the ES|QL panel variants or over create_visualization, nor any prerequisite (e.g. the dashboard must already exist, which is only implied). The 'existing dashboard' phrasing hints at a precondition but never states it.

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