Update Dashboard

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that the tool reads the current configuration before applying changes, which helps anticipate its behavior. However, it does not explain the mechanics of the update (e.g., merge vs. replace) or acknowledge the component-related parameters, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It is appropriately concise and includes a helpful callout to an alternative tool. However, the first sentence's phrasing ('title or description') is slightly imprecise given the actual parameters, which costs it a point.

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?

With no output schema and five parameters, the description should clarify what the tool does with each parameter and what the update entails. It does not mention runningUser or the component arrays, and its statement about structural changes contradicts the schema. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's full capabilities and limitations.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds little value and actually misleads by mentioning 'description' (no such parameter exists) and implying structural changes are not supported, while the schema clearly includes componentsToAdd and componentsToRemove. This actively harms parameter understanding.

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 states a clear action ('Updates an existing Dashboard's title or description') and distinguishes it from sf_create_dashboard, but it is misleading because the schema includes parameters for adding/removing components (componentsToAdd, componentsToRemove), which the description explicitly says to handle via sf_create_dashboard instead. This internal contradiction diminishes clarity about the tool's actual scope.

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 description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('The dashboard must already exist') and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative ('For structural changes... use sf_create_dashboard to create a new version'). This is clear, actionable, and distinguishes it from a sibling tool.

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