manage_grafana_datasources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses per-operation input requirements and implicitly signals that 'remove' mutates/deletes and 'test' is a connectivity probe. It does not state that removal is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what 'add' actually provisions, leaving real behavioral gaps for a mutation-capable 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?

Front-loads the resource, then uses a tight bulleted list where each line is one operation plus its required parameter. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and it is easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers all three parameters at the mapping level plus the missing operation enum. The remaining gap is the contents of ds_json and any permission/irreversibility notes, which is modest given the schema richness elsewhere.

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 0% and the 'operation' property has no enum, so the description's operation list is the only place the valid values appear — a meaningful addition. But it only maps ds_id/ds_json to operations; the required structure and keys of ds_json (the datasource config object) remain completely undefined.

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?

Names a specific resource (Grafana datasources) and enumerates four concrete operations (list/add/remove/test), so the agent knows exactly what capability set is behind it. It is distinguishable from manage_grafana_dashboards by resource, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 implied by the operation names and the per-operation parameter requirements (add needs ds_json, remove/test need ds_id), so an agent can pick the right operation. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as manage_grafana_dashboards or provision_standard_dashboards, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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