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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the core effect and adds a valuable non-obvious constraint: filterJson must be an app-stored shape from saved_views_list rather than an invented format. It does not cover errors or permissions, but the most important behavioral risk is addressed.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the filterJson caveat is concise but essential.

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 simple three-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the one tricky parameter. Return-value details are omitted, but the action is straightforward and the schema is fully documented, so this is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that filterJson should reuse the exact shape returned by saved_views_list because the format belongs to the app's filter builder. This is genuinely useful guidance that the schema alone does not provide.

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 names a specific operation—save a filter as a named view for reuse—using a clear verb and resource. It is also distinct from the main sibling saved_views_list, which only lists existing views.

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?

The use case is clearly stated: persist a filter so the user can reuse it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the only same-family sibling is the list operation, making the intended context clear without exclusions.

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