Create saved view

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a mutating but not destructive operation within a bounded API. The description does not describe side effects (e.g., whether creating a view overwrites an existing one, whether validation rejects the request, response behavior). Given the readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, the description adds the validation note but little else about behavioral effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, getting to the point in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful validation context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more organized.

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 complex nested config schema with two variants (keywords vs competitors surfaces), the description is reasonably complete. It lacks details about return values but there is no output schema, so some expectation explanation would help. The dual-surface ambiguity mentioned in purpose is the main completeness 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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema documents most parameters well (project_id, name, config). The description adds value by enumerating known valid values for the country/serp filters within config, which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. The idempotency_key parameter is not described in the schema and remains unexplained, a minor gap.

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 the tool creates a saved keyword view for a project, using a specific verb+resource. However, the input schema shows the config can represent two surfaces (keywords or competitors), yet the description only mentions 'keyword view' and the surface parameter permits both 'keywords' and 'competitors'. This creates slight ambiguity about whether it also creates competitor views.

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 helpful known-valid values for country and serp filters, which acts as implicit usage guidance. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like create_alert_rule, list_saved_views, or explain when a saved view should be created vs. other operations. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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