update_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that description is optional and omitting it sets the value to null on the server, that name must be unique within the tenant, and that the operation is a full PUT. This gives the agent meaningful expectations beyond the schema, though it does not cover error handling or authorization.

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 front-loaded with the most important fact (full PUT) and then structured with a short explanatory paragraph and an Args list. It is reasonably concise and every section adds value, though the API/DashboardWrite sentence is slightly redundant with the opening.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the operation type, parameter constraints, null semantics, and uniqueness behavior. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits details like conflict errors or whether the update is idempotent.

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%, so the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: dashboard_id's role, name's length and uniqueness requirements, and description's null/omit behavior. Each parameter receives semantic detail that is absent from the raw schema, making this a model example of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a dashboard's name and description (full PUT)' — this clearly identifies the operation and the fact that it is a full replacement rather than a partial patch. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_dashboard, delete_dashboard, and get_dashboard without ambiguity.

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 full PUT semantics and required name field imply this is for updating an existing dashboard, and the sibling names make the create/update/delete split reasonably clear. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_dashboard, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or mention that the dashboard must already exist.

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