conduyt_add_dashboard_tile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses validation dependencies (kind-to-style pairings, required target/pivot/group-by), but says nothing about permissions, whether tile placement/ordering is affected, or whether adding is idempotent.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with the core action first and constraints after; telegraphic shorthand ('kind kpi …', 'size s / m / l') is efficient though slightly cryptic for an uninitiated reader.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical conditional logic but omits permissions, return behavior, and what happens to existing tile layout—gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

Schema coverage is only 43%, and the description compensates well by explaining the kind enum, the size grid ('s / m / l on a six-column grid'), and the conditional requirements tying style/target/pivot to kind. It leaves id, title, and savedReportId largely to the schema.

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 resource: 'Pin a saved report to a dashboard.' An agent can immediately grasp the effect, though it doesn't name the related siblings (update_dashboard_tile, remove_dashboard_tile) that could be confused with it.

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?

Provides concrete preconditions: a goal KPI needs a target, a chart needs a group by, a pivot needs a pivot, plus valid style pairings per kind. It does not, however, say when to choose this over updating or removing an existing tile.

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