update_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the read-modify-write merge semantics, which prevents the user from expecting a full overwrite. It also warns that 'panels/layout' must be passed as complete arrays, a critical detail for correct invocation. This goes well beyond what structured fields would convey.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two behavioral notes. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and efficiently structured.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, an output schema, and a clear behavior. The description covers the update mechanism, partial field merging, and the array requirement, leaving no ambiguity about invocation or expected behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, so this is complete.

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 already explains both parameters, and the description adds value by clarifying how the fields_json parameter is used: it is merged into the existing config, not a full replacement. The warning about complete arrays for panels/layout augments the schema's example. Since coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 applies, but the extra context earns a 4.

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 function: 'Update a dashboard's configuration (read-modify-write).' The verb 'update' is specific, and 'read-modify-write' disambiguates the operation mode from simple overwrite or create. It is distinguished from siblings like delete_dashboard and create_dashboard, making the purpose explicit.

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 clear usage context: it explains that the tool fetches the current config, merges changes, and saves, and instructs to pass only changed fields. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the read-modify-write behavior implies the intended use case for partial updates, which is sufficient.

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