manage_grafana_dashboards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does important work by disclosing that `create` is actually an upsert ("Create or update"), which is non-obvious. However, it never states that `delete` is irreversible or what it destroys, nor permission/auth requirements. Output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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?

One lead sentence plus a bulleted operation list, front-loaded with the general purpose and then scannable per operation. Zero filler; every line maps to a distinct callable behavior.

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 3-parameter multi-operation tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters and all operations adequately. The remaining gap is that destructive semantics of `delete` and any auth prerequisites go unstated.

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 0% and `operation` is an unconstrained string, so the description is the only place the valid operations and their parameter pairings are defined — a substantial addition over the schema. It still omits the expected UID format and the required shape of `dashboard_json`, but the operation-to-parameter mapping is clearly conveyed.

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+resource ("Manage Grafana dashboards") and enumerates the four supported operations, which is essential because the `operation` param has no enum in the schema. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling `provision_standard_dashboards`, which could plausibly be confused with the `create` path.

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?

Each operation carries its prerequisite ("requires 'dashboard_json'", "requires 'uid'"), giving clear per-operation invocation context. It stops short of saying when to pick this tool over `provision_standard_dashboards` or `manage_grafana_datasources`, so no exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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