Create Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare mutability ('readOnlyHint': false). Description adds behavioral insight: 'the MCP assigns ids and lays them out automatically'. Does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior. With annotations present, this meets expectations but doesn't exceed them.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value: purpose, required field, widget/scoping guidance, and a reference to an auxiliary tool. Well-structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters and nested objects, the description covers creation essentials (title, widgets, scope, dependency on list_dashboard_widgets). It does not explicitly mention parameters like 'assignTo', 'isDefault', or 'description', but these are standard and the schema provides adequate documentation. The presence of an output schema likely fills any gaps in return value understanding. Could be slightly more complete by noting that output includes the created dashboard details, but overall sufficient.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by summarizing scoping parameters ('scope with folderScope, dateRange, and filters'), explaining widget creation ('Add widgets by listing their types'), and providing a usage tip to call list_dashboard_widgets. These clarifications go beyond the schema's per-field descriptions, especially the automatic ID assignment and layout.

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?

Clearly states 'Create an analytics dashboard' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling creation tools by focusing on analytics dashboards. Adds context that only 'title' is required and explains the widget mechanism, making the purpose precise.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Call list_dashboard_widgets first to see the available widget types and their config keys'. Implicitly suggests when to use (when you want an analytics dashboard with automatic widget layout). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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