conduyt_update_dashboard_tile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely non-obvious rule ('null clears the target'), but nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved or overwritten (a critical ambiguity for an update tool with additionalProperties=false), nor about permissions, validation failures, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the affected resource and fields. The parenthetical on null is placed exactly where it's needed.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 17% documented schema, the description is thin. An agent still doesn't know whether this is a partial patch, what tileId refers to, or what a style like 'goal' requires of target.

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 description coverage is only 17% — just 'id' is documented — so the description must compensate, and it does name the four mutable fields (style, size, title, target) plus the null semantics for target. However, tileId is never explained, the style enum values (ledger, trend, goal, ranked, target, focus) are not characterized, and the size enum abbreviations are left bare.

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 ('Change a tile's ...') and enumerates the mutable fields, which the tile-scoped name alone wouldn't convey. It is clearly distinguishable from add_dashboard_tile and remove_dashboard_tile, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: 'Change' tells the agent this is for modifying an existing tile, and the parenthetical establishes the null-to-clear convention. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over removing and re-adding a tile, or whether it requires the tile to already exist.

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