update_panel

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Replace the visualization' implies mutation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) and hints the prior visualization is gone, but it never states whether the operation is destructive to the old content, whether it's idempotent (destructiveHint=false), or whether it requires the panel to already exist. The agent must infer all of this.

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 compact, readable sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add a useful parameter note. There is no fluff, but the brevity causes it to under-deliver on behavioral and usage context.

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 that overwrites a visualization on a dashboard Affecting whether an existing panel is silently destroyed, how indexes are obtained, and whether the operation is idempotent, the description provides only the index source and space semantics. There is no note on outcome, error conditions, or interaction with the existing panel, so an agent lacks a full picture of what calling this does.

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 clarifies two parameters: panel_index (which indexes come from get_dashboard) and space (id, defaults to default space). The nested panel fields (chart_type, metrics, group_by, etc.) already carry rich descriptions in the schema. However, dashboard_id receives no extra meaning and the interplay (e.g., does space apply to all params?) is left vague. Description partially supplements the schema, so a 3 is fair.

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 verb 'Replace' is specific and 'visualization at panel_index' clearly identifies the target resource, with a useful pointer to get_dashboard for the index. However, the description does not name or distinguish from sibling tools like add_panel or update_panel variants, so an agent could confuse scope. Minor ambiguity: does 'visualization' mean the chart, its config, or the whole panel?

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 guidance is a cross-reference to get_dashboard for indexes. There's no statement about when this tool should be used versus the many create/add siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusion of alternatives. Nothing tells the agent what should be fetched first (though indexing is implied) or what happens if the panel doesn't exist.

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