create_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the non-obvious consequence of omitting rich_filters: the view saves but shows every work item. It also reveals the permission requirement. It does not mention return format or side effects, but for a create operation this is a reasonably transparent disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the role requirementкие and the most important behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no-annotation tool with a nested object input and no output schema, the description covers the critical filter behavior and role prerequisite, but it does not say what the response will contain or which fields are required beyond what the schema already shows. The schema is rich, but the description alone is not fully complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate, but it mostly repeats what the rich_filters property already states in the schema. It does not add meaning for other key fields such as name, access, or query. The rich_filters caveat is useful, but the description adds limited parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a saved view in a project,' a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_issue, create_cycle, or update_view. It also adds the role requirement, which narrows scope further. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly states a precondition ('Requires project Admin or Member role') and gives an important usage directive about passing rich_filters to make the view open filtered. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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