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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable conflict behavior, version requirement, and the distinction between unchanged vs changed payloads for idempotency-key reuse, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by critical constraints. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail without repetition.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description supplies the key behavioral requirements: preserved omitted fields, exact IDs, version passing, and conflict handling. It is nearly complete, though the low schema coverage for the complex changes array leaves a small 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 low at 20%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'name, filters, or sorting' to the changes array and mentions exact column/option IDs and the view version, but it does not explain the required sheetId, viewId, or the structure of changes, leaving significant schema burden unmet.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update one shared saved view's name, filters, or sorting.' This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/reorder view operations, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, keeping it just below 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?

It gives clear usage context: preserve omitted fields, use exact column/option IDs, pass the view version from sheets.get, and handle conflicts with a fresh read plus new idempotency key. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct sibling comparisons, but the operational guidance is strong.

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