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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld) by disclosing that every call creates a revision, is test-rendered and reviewed, that failed renders are not published and readers keep the last working version, and that review data is sent to OpenAI unless checks are disabled. The privacy/permission disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, concurrency safety, edit preference, side effects, then the exclusion. Nearly every sentence carries actionable information, though the block on follow-up requests replacing earlier blocks is somewhat tangential and lengthens an already long description.

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 14-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the required precondition (get_view), the edit-vs-rewrite decision, concurrency protection, and the render/review pipeline that determines whether changes actually land. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `expected_revision` is tied to the concurrency guard ('the revision get_view showed you'), and `edits` is explained as find-and-replace with exactly-matching, unique old_strings. It does not specify the source format or `dependencies` shape, but that is minor given the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Changes an existing view's code or metadata') and immediately contrasts itself with the sibling upsert_rows for the numeric-only case. It is clearly distinguishable from create_view, get_view, and update_dataset.

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?

Explicitly states the preferred path ('Prefer `edits` ... for targeted changes'), the fallback ('Use `source` only for a full rewrite'), the rollback path (`restore_revision`), and a hard exclusion ('To change only the numbers a view shows, do NOT use this tool: use upsert_rows'). It also mandates calling get_view first.

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