provision_standard_dashboards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write operation. It never says whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites or duplicates existing dashboards of the same name, what permissions or a reachable Grafana/datasource are required, or what happens on partial failure.

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 effect is stated in the first sentence and the numbered list is compact and scannable, with no filler prose. The list is slightly redundant (the names are self-describing) but it usefully confirms scope.

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-value explanation is not required, and the effect list is complete. Still, for an unannotated mutating tool the description omits prerequisites and idempotency/overwrite behavior, which is the kind of context an agent needs before running setup against a live Grafana instance.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly presents it as a no-argument bootstrap action, so there is no parameter meaning an agent could miss. Per the zero-parameter baseline this lands at 4 rather than 5, since the enumerated dashboard names do not function as inputs.

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?

Specific verb (provision/set up) plus resource (Grafana dashboards), and it enumerates exactly which three dashboards are created, so the agent knows the concrete effect. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling manage_grafana_dashboards, which sounds like it could also create dashboards.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing away from the close siblings manage_grafana_dashboards or manage_grafana_datasources. Usage is only implied by the word 'standard', leaving the agent to guess whether this is the bootstrap path or a duplicate of the generic management tool.

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