update_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update a saved view' and restates that parameters are requested; it does not explain mutation semantics, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. 'Update' implies mutation but adds no real behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a single actionable routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema is rich and fully documents the parameters, which covers much of the needed context. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves mutation semantics unstated, such as whether update is partial/full and how read-only fields are handled. This is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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 100%, and every parameter, including the nested view_data fields, is already described in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond calling out the uuid parameters and the view_id lookup pointer, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'a saved view', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_view, get_view, delete_view, and list_project_views. There is no ambiguity about what resource the operation targets.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'If you do not have the view_id, use the list_project_views tool to find it.' It also signals that both project_id and view_id are needed for this operation, which helps the agent determine whether it has sufficient context before calling.

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