Create Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it specifies the normalization rules (case-insensitive, whitespace/punctuation-normalized), the exact side effect (panels replaced, but filters/query/tags/display options preserved), and the return `status` values `created`/`replaced`. This is high-value behavioral context for a mutating tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers idempotency, prerequisite, and space semantics. Each sentence is substantive, though the idempotency clause is dense with parenthetical detail that could be tightened marginally.

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 documented (the description still usefully names the `status` values). The description covers the mutation semantics, idempotency, prerequisite, and space scoping; only the undocumented top-level params (time_range, description) leave a small gap for a 5-param tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only clarifies `space` (targets a Kibana space by id, defaulting to the default space). It says nothing about `time_range` defaults/semantics or the `description` parameter, leaving those to inference despite the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Create a dashboard') and scopes it to input from 'one or more visualization specs', which distinguishes it from siblings like create_visualization (single viz) and add_panel (mutating an existing dashboard). An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Call describe_data_view first to learn real field names') and explains the idempotent routing behavior (same title updates rather than duplicates), which steers correct invocation. It does not, however, explicitly contrast against sibling tools such as add_panel or create_visualization for building up dashboards incrementally.

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