Update Panel

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds that the operation replaces rather than merges a panel and that space defaults to the default Kibana space. It does not say what happens to unspecified panel fields, whether an out-of-range index errors, or how existing panel ordering is affected.

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 tight sentences, the core replace semantics front-loaded, followed by the one non-obvious parameter clarification. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 no explanation, and the nested panel schema is richly annotated. Still missing is any signal about failure modes (invalid panel_index, unknown dashboard_id) and the relationship to add_panel, which matters given the number of panel-creation siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate: it explains panel_index (an index obtained via get_dashboard) and space (Kibana space id, default space). It says nothing about dashboard_id, and the deeply nested `panel` structure is documented only in the schema. This is partial compensation for a real 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 and target: 'Replace the visualization at panel_index'. The word 'Replace' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_panel, and the pointer to get_dashboard clarifies what panel_index refers to. It does not explicitly name add_panel as the alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description tells the agent where to find valid panel indexes (get_dashboard) and explains the default behavior of `space`, which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to add_panel or the esql panel tools, so the agent must infer that this is for modifying an existing panel rather than adding one.

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