update_dashboard

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. The added 'requires write permission' note provides a useful authorization detail. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, what side effects occur, or what happens if the dashboard_id does not exist.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the useful permission note. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for a tool with five parameters and no output schema.

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 an update operation with five parameters and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: it does not state the response behavior, whether partial updates are supported, or any error conditions. The annotations and schema cover basic safety and parameter meaning, but the description fails to provide enough operational context for an agent to fully understand the update workflow.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, defaults, or update semantics. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing dashboard'. This distinguishes it from create/delete/get dashboard tools at a basic level, though it adds no detail about what aspects of a dashboard can be updated or how it differs from nearby tools like update_dashboard_group.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools such as get_dashboard or create_dashboard, no exclusions, and no conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. The only contextual hint is the write permission requirement.

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