Update Visualization

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the id is preserved, dashboards referencing the viz via add_library_panel update in place, while panels added via add_panel/create_dashboard are independent copies that do not. It also documents the space-targeting behavior and default, which the agent cannot guess.

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 with the core action front-loaded, followed by the consequence, then the space note. No filler and nothing redundant with schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. It could still note the prerequisite that the visualization must already exist (and what happens if it doesn't), but overall an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 reported at 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it only adds meaning for `space` ('targets a Kibana space by id, default: the default space'). `spec` and `visualization_id` get no explicit description-level clarification, though the nested spec schema is richly self-documenting and 'Replace ... with a new spec' gives some framing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Replace a library visualization') and pins down scope with 'its id stays the same', which separates it from create_visualization (new object) and from panel-level edits. The propagation sentence further clarifies that this acts on the library object, not on separate dashboard copies.

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?

Usage is implied by the replacement semantics and the propagation note, which helps an agent anticipate consequences. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given against close siblings like update_panel (dashboard-embedded panels) or create_visualization, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right one.

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