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

Annotations give only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real value: it discloses the non-obvious invariant that artifact_id, the underlying brain object and any share link survive the update. It still omits permission/auth requirements and what happens if spec_version conflicts with the existing source.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the mutable fields, then the identity-preservation guarantee. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 and minimal annotations, the description covers the operation, the mutable set, the partial-update rule and the preserved-identity guarantee. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; error and auth behavior are the only remaining gaps.

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 80%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description names the four mutable fields (source, title, spec_version, state) and adds the crucial partial-update semantic that unspecified fields stay as-is. That is meaning beyond the schema, which never says an update can be partial.

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 and resource ('Change a saved view in place') and enumerates exactly which fields can change, which cleanly separates it from generate_view. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the 'in place' framing makes the mutation-vs-creation distinction obvious without opening a schema.

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 line 'Pass only what changes' is genuine usage guidance, but it is about how to fill parameters rather than when to pick this tool over generate_view or share_artifact. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is implied at best.

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