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 covered. The description adds the critical behavioral fact that the tool has been renamed, which is not in annotations, but it does not describe what gets detached, required permissions, or whether the old endpoint still functions.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the key action word 'Renamed' and the alternative. Every word earns its place.

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 deprecated alias, the description gives the essential redirect, and annotations cover destructiveness. However, it omits whether this tool still works or will error, and doesn't restate the operation, leaving the agent to infer the deprecation's effect.

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%, and the schema describes both view_id and delivery_target_id with sources. The description only mentions detach_destination, which belongs to update_view, so it adds no meaning to this tool's parameters.

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?

The description does not state what remove_view_target does; it only announces a rename and points to update_view. It does distinguish the tool's replacement, so an agent can avoid the wrong tool, but the original operation (detach a destination) is left to the title. This is a vague purpose for the tool itself.

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 replacement and the parameter to use ('use update_view with detach_destination'), which is exactly the routing an agent needs. There is no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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