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

The description asserts 'Idempotent', but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct contradiction of a behavioral trait. While the revocation-timing and auth details are genuinely useful, contradicting the structured hint is disqualifying under the scoring rules.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by idempotency, revocation timing, and auth requirements in four tight sentences with little filler. The content is well ordered, though the contradiction taints one of the sentences.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational concerns: ownership scope, auth requirement, required scope, and revocation latency. It omits any return-value indication and the idempotency claim is inconsistent, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema itself documents view_id (from list_saved_views) and expected_revision (conflict/reconciliation semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: reverting a saved view to private. The 'YOUR OWN shared' qualifier scopes it precisely and separates it from siblings like share_saved_view, archive_saved_view and delete_saved_view. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Preconditions are made explicit ('YOUR OWN shared saved views', authentication, tickets:write scope), which tells the agent when this call is valid. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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