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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description goes beyond by disclosing partial-update behavior (unsent fields unchanged), preservation of id and team share, owner-only edit rights, and authentication/scope requirements. This substantially enriches the behavioral picture.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and preservation, partial-update safety, owner-only restriction, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (7 params, nested filters object), existing annotations, and output schema, the description covers all essential context: what changes, what stays, who can call, and required access. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further investigation.

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% with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'only the fields you send change; the rest are left exactly as they were,' which clarifies how to interpret omitted optional parameters. This contextualizes the schema without repeating it.

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 clearly uses a specific verb ('Revise') and resource ('saved views') with an explicit scope ('YOUR OWN'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_saved_view, delete_saved_view, execute_saved_view, and get_saved_view. It also states key preservation behavior (keeping id and team share).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: partial updates without re-reading, owner-only restriction, and required auth/scope. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the owner-only clause and partial-update semantics effectively imply when not to use it versus siblings.

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