create_dashboard

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description explains the normalized title matching, that existing panels are replaced while filters/query/tags/display options are preserved, and that the return status is `created` or `replaced`. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance the structured fields cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: a clear one-line definition, a compact idempotency/replacement contract with return status, and a prerequisite plus `space` default. No filler.

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?

The high-complexity tool has rich nested schema, output schema, and annotations, and the description covers the important behavioral contract and prerequisite. It is not a 5 only because top-level parameter documentation is sparse (e.g., `time_range` and `description` are not explained in prose).

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 input schema has 0% top-level description coverage, so the prose description must compensate, but it only covers `space` explicitly. `title`, `panels`, `time_range`, and `description` are left to schema inference; nested panel properties are explained in the schema, but the top-level parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Create a dashboard') and object ('from one or more visualization specs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_visualization or add_panel. The idempotent-update behavior further clarifies that this is the tool for creating/replacing whole dashboards by title.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite ('Call describe_data_view first to learn real field names') and explains the title-matching update behavior, so an agent knows when reuse with same title occurs. It does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for selection among dashboard/visualization/panel tools.

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