superset-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral context.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient with every word contributing to the purpose statement.

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 this is a mutation tool with 6 parameters (1 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what properties can be updated, what the 'pk' represents, or provide any behavioral context. The output schema helps with return values, but the description should do more for a complex update operation.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—not even the required 'pk' or what properties can be updated. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 'Update a chart's properties' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (chart), but it's vague about what specific properties are involved and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like update_dashboard or update_dataset. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_chart, delete_chart, or get_chart. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the tool name.

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