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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, side effects on dependent views, or confirmation requirements. It merely restates the action without enriching the safety profile beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently phrased, though it borders on being a tautology. The structure is front-loaded with the action, but it lacks any elaboration that would justify a higher score.

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 that this is a destructive operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but incomplete. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the view does not exist, or whether it affects other objects. The annotation covers the destructive nature, but the description itself adds little beyond that, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'view' parameter ('View name or id.') with 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints about the parameter, such as format, uniqueness, or how to obtain valid values. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 'Remove a saved view' is essentially a synonym for the title 'Delete a saved view'. It clearly identifies the verb and resource but adds no specificity beyond the title, such as whether the deletion is permanent or affects associated data. It does not distinguish itself from siblings because there is no other view-deletion tool, but it also does not clarify scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, consequences, or when a different action (e.g., update_view or archive) would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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