superset_add_chart_to_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as an 'add' (mutation) but fails to mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the chart is already on the dashboard, whether permissions are required, or how errors are handled. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the verb and object, and it includes the key positional context. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it both concise 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?

The description covers the primary action but omits important contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., the dashboard and chart must already exist), whether adding a chart at a position replaces an existing one, and any constraints on the coordinate values. While the output schema handles return values, the description still lacks enough context for handling edge cases or validation.

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 description explicitly names the positional parameters (x, y, width, height) and explains their role as defining a 'grid position'. It also implicitly defines chart_id and dashboard_id by referring to 'existing chart' and 'dashboard'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by giving the parameters meaningful context that the raw schema lacks.

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 specific action: 'Add an existing chart to a dashboard' with the grid position parameters. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('existing chart', 'dashboard') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_chart or create_dashboard.

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 context is clear: this tool is for adding an existing chart to a dashboard with a specified layout. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, such as using superset_create_chart to make a new chart first or superset_get_dashboard_charts to verify existing charts.

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