add_dashboard_card

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Add a card', but does not indicate that this is a write operation modifying the dashboard, or any requirements (permissions, card existence). The minimal description leaves the agent unaware of side effects or prerequisites.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words. No fluff, directly states the purpose and version. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10+ parameters with nested objects like virtual_card and parameter_mappings), the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain key concepts such as the difference between real and virtual cards, tab assignment, or how parameter mappings work. The absence of output schema further increases the need for a richer description.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., col, row, size_x, virtual_card). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. With good schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'Add', the resource 'card', and the target 'dashboard'. It includes a version constraint (v0.49+), which is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_dashboard_card or remove_dashboard_card.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_dashboard_tab vs. this). There is no mention of prerequisites like the dashboard or card existing, or when to use virtual_card versus card_id. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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