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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the useful nuance that removal is permanent and warns against unsolicited use, but says nothing about recoverability, permissions, or side effects on share_view/check_view references.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the destructive consequence front-loaded and the caution trailing it. Nothing superfluous.

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 two-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness and whose parameters are fully documented, the description covers purpose and the key caution. It is only slightly incomplete in not addressing permissions or whether a deleted view can be restored.

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 100% and both parameters (slug, reason) are documented in the schema itself, including the changelog purpose of 'reason'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('removes') and resource ('a view') with an explicit scope ('from the user's workspace'), letting an agent distinguish it from delete_dataset, delete_rows, and other delete siblings by resource alone.

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?

'Only do this when the user asked for it' gives one usage condition, but there is no when-not guidance, no mention of the update_view alternative, and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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