update_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool renames and updates description, preserving pages and widgets. It does not discuss side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but for a simple update this is adequate. Additional details like response format would increase transparency.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence conveys purpose and parameters, the second states what is preserved. Very efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Considering the low complexity, no output schema, and sibling tools available, the description covers the main points: what it does, what parameters are needed, and what is preserved. It could mention return value but is not essential. Complete enough for an agent.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds that the operation is 'by GUID' and that name/description are optional. This adds little beyond the schema, so 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: rename and/or update description of a dashboard by GUID. It uses specific verbs and resource, and the sibling list includes related tools like add_widget_to_dashboard and delete_dashboard, distinguishing this tool as the one for updating name/description.

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 mentions that pages and widgets are preserved unchanged, which implies it is safe to use when only name/description need changing. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives, but the context and sibling tools provide some guidance. A more explicit exclusion would improve score.

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