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 partly covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the cascade ('all its Matches'), irreversibility ('it cannot be undone'), and the softer alternative. It doesn't discuss permissions or confirmation requirements, but the key behavioral risk is well communicated.

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 tightly written sentences: destructive consequence front-loaded, alternative second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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-param delete with no output schema, the description covers consequence, irreversibility, and the safer path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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% with a single required param (view_id) already documented including its source ('from list_views'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Deletes a saved View'), plus the scope of the deletion ('all its Matches'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_view and list_views without opening either schema.

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 names the when-not case and the alternative: 'To stop a View for now and keep its Matches, use update_view with enabled false instead.' The agent is routed to the correct sibling with the exact parameter value to use.

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