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

The description clarifies that the operation is non-cascading and permanent, which is critical behavioral information beyond what the annotations provide. However, it doesn't mention failure cases, return behavior, or idempotency, which would be relevant for a destructive operation.

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, dense sentences with minimal fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the key qualifiers (typo: 'only') are front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the essential context needed to understand its scope and side effects. A couple of minor aspects (e.g., what happens on success, idempotency) are already covered by the presence of an output schema and the annotations, so they aren't critical 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?

The description doesn't add to the parameter-level descriptions already present in the schema, but the schema is 100% complete with descriptions like "The View id. Pass this OR view_name." and "The View name, matched case-insensitively. Pass this OR view_id." The description is largely redundant with the schema, so it adds no new parameter-level context.

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?

"Permanently delete a Saved View" provides an explicit, specific verb and resource, going beyond the title and generic name. It clearly communicates the destructive nature and the object of the operation.

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 clarifies the scope of the deletion ("only the saved definition"), but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling operations like update_view, create_view, or get_view. It lacks explicit 'use when' or 'use instead of' guidance, relying on the reader to infer when to choose this tool.

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