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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the tool has been renamed/deprecated, which annotations do not convey, but says nothing about what happens if it is still invoked or what state it mutates.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the deprecation and immediately followed by the redirect. Nothing extraneous; for a tombstoned tool this is exactly the right size.

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 renamed/deprecated alias with no output schema, the description supplies the essential information an agent needs (stop using this, go here). It does not clarify whether the call still functions or how to map cadence/delivery_target_id onto update_view's attach_destination, a minor gap.

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% (view_id, delivery_target_id, cadence all documented with sourcing hints and cadence semantics), so the baseline is 3. The mention of 'attach_destination' hints at a parameter of the replacement tool but adds no meaning to this tool's own 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 itself does not state what the tool does (attach a delivery destination to a view); that only comes from the title. It does communicate that the tool is renamed/deprecated and where the replacement lives, which is the most decision-relevant fact, but an agent reading the description alone gets no verb+resource description.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative to use instead ('use update_view with attach_destination'), which is the strongest routing guidance possible for a deprecated tool. It omits whether calling this tool is still safe or errors out, but the when-not-to-use direction is unambiguous.

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