superset-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implies mutation but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, response format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 with a single sentence ('Update an existing dashboard.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but based on the dimension's focus on brevity and structure, it scores highly.

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 (mutation with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, usage context, or behavioral details, relying too heavily on the output schema without providing necessary upfront context for effective tool selection.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to clarify the meaning of 'pk', 'title', 'published', 'json_metadata', or 'position_json'. This leaves all 5 parameters undocumented, significantly below the baseline expectation.

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 an existing dashboard' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('dashboard'), but it's vague about what specific aspects are updated. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_chart' or 'update_dataset' beyond the resource name, and it lacks specificity about the update 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a dashboard PK), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'publish_dashboard' or 'copy_dashboard'. The description offers no contextual usage information.

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