update_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Use with caution due to context window limitations,' which adds some context about potential issues, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on creation versus update. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a cautionary note. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient, though it could be more structured with clearer separation of purpose and guidelines.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for the agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters like 'dashboard', 'folderId', 'message', or 'overwrite', failing to compensate for the lack of schema details. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what inputs are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update or create') and resource ('dashboard'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_alert_rule' or 'deploy_ramp_dashboard' that might also involve creation operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'Use with caution due to context window limitations,' which hints at a constraint but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_alert_rule' or 'deploy_ramp_dashboard.' There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations, leaving usage context vague.

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