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 known; the description goes further by naming what is destroyed (all Matches) and that it is irreversible, plus the consequence of the alternative path. It stops short of stating any confirmation or permission requirements, which would be the last piece for a 5.

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 sentences: the destructive scope and irreversibility come first, then the usage constraint and the sibling alternative. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and destructive/readOnly annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is deleted, that it cannot be undone, when to use it, and what to do instead when matches must be preserved. No output schema exists, but the outcome is unambiguous.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents view_id including its origin ('from list_views'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 View') plus the cascade effect ('and all its Matches permanently'), which is the crucial detail for an agent deciding whether to call it. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from update_view, the sibling that handles the non-destructive disable case.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use it only when the person asks to delete a View') and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ('To stop its alerts and keep its Matches, use update_view with enabled false'). That is a complete routing rule, not an inference.

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