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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that removal is permanent, but says nothing about the required reason/changelog entry or side effects such as breaking shared links.

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 with zero filler; the destructive action and its scope are front-loaded and the caution follows immediately.

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 simple two-parameter delete with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is sufficient. Only minor gaps remain, such as who can delete a view and whether shared views are affected.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the slug format or what the reason field is used for beyond what the schema states.

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 explicit scope (the user's workspace) and permanence, which cleanly separates it from delete_dataset and delete_rows. It stops short of naming a sibling to route against, but the resource alone 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?

"Only do this when the user asked for it" is a real gating condition that tells the agent not to delete speculatively. It gives clear context but names no alternative (e.g., update_view for renaming) and no exclusions beyond that one condition.

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