conduyt_update_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important patch semantics ('only the fields you pass change') and the tileOrder invariant. It omits what replacing filters does to existing tiles, what sharing requires permission-wise, and whether changes are reversible, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mutation surface and followed by the key constraint and the patch rule. 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?

For a six-parameter mutation with a nested filters object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the field surface but not the consequences of filter replacement, sharing permissions, or the expected response. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 17%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the hardest parameter well (tileOrder = every tile id once, in the new order) and names the rest of the fields, but leaves isShared, description nullability, and filter replacement behavior underexplained.

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 enumerates the specific fields the tool mutates (rename, describe, share, replace filters, reorder tiles) on a dashboard, which is a clear verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like conduyt_update_dashboard_tile or conduyt_add_dashboard_tile, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Only the fields you pass change' implies partial-update usage, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no routing to the tile-level or create/delete siblings. The agent must infer that whole-board edits belong here while single-tile edits belong elsewhere.

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