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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: sending columns replaces the entire selection/order, so every native and custom field that should remain visible must be included. It also discloses the API-key scope `views:write`, tells the agent to use raw custom-field identifiers from pm_get_workspace_context, and notes that header icons belong in custom-field metadata rather than view configuration.

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 dense but front-loaded, starting with the core action and scope before moving into configuration details and verification guidance. Most sentences earn their place, though the paragraph is longer than typical and could be slightly tighter.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior, verification path, permission scope, and DTO formats. It is not fully complete for all 10 parameters, but an agent has enough information to use the tool safely and correctly in the common case.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description carries extra burden. It usefully explains that filters and columns use FilterGroupDTO and ColumnOrderItem shapes and clarifies the replacement semantics of columns, but it leaves sortBy, groupBy, sortDirection, isPrivate, and identifier meaning largely to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a view', and immediately extends scope to the auto-created primary List view used during list setup. It distinguishes the tool from default-only views and from Lite GET/list responses, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this to configure column order, grouping, and sorting instead of leaving a defaults-only view, and read back the rich resource-view configuration for verification because Lite GET/list responses omit columns and filters. It does not explicitly name pm_create_view or other sibling alternatives, keeping it from a 5.

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