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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the description correctly does not restate the safety profile. It instead adds real value: mandatory system-created views fail with 409 Conflict, success returns 204, and the required API-key scope is `views:write`. It stops short of saying what happens to content or whether deletion is cascading or reversible.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded, then the failure mode, then the success code and auth scope. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a destructive single-resource delete with no output schema, the description covers the critical pieces: the failure mode for protected entities, the success status, and the permission scope. Missing only are consequences (cascading effects, reversibility) and clarity on the identifier format, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 67%: the account and workspace parameters carry detailed descriptions. The `identifier` parameter has no schema description, and the description adds only the words 'by identifier', which does not explain whether it is a view name, numeric id, or slug. Minimum-viable, but the one gap lands on the required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a view by identifier'), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutations like pm_delete_saved_filter, pm_delete_list, and pm_update_view. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus pm_delete_saved_filter, pm_delete_list, or when to use pm_update_view instead. The 409 behavior for mandatory views is a constraint, not an alternative-selection rule. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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