Delete saved view

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds the user-confirmation requirement on top, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention whether deletion is reversible, cascading, or what happens to related views/keywords. Given annotations already cover the destructive nature, the description adds modest incremental value.

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 short sentences with zero filler. Every word earns its place: the action, the resource, and a critical safety directive. Perfectly sized for a destructive delete operation.

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 fairly simple delete operation with clear annotations and 67% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, the undocumented idempotency_key parameter and lack of detail on side effects (e.g., whether deleting a view affects anything downstream) leave minor gaps. The destructive confirmation guidance compensates somewhat, but this could be more complete.

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 67% (view_id and project_id are described; idempotency_key has no description). The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The idempotency_key is undocumented in both schema and description. With 2 of 3 params documented in schema, the baseline 3 applies; the description adds no parameter clarification.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Delete a project saved view.' This is a specific verb (delete) plus resource (saved view). The purpose is straightforward and aligns with the sibling create_saved_view. It scores 4 because while clear, it doesn't differentiate much from other delete tools like delete_project or delete_keyword, though the resource name disambiguates sufficiently.

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 important context: 'Use only after the user confirms deletion.' This is a clear usage directive indicating it's a destructive action that requires user consent. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the confirmation requirement is valuable safety guidance. No alternative tools are named for comparison.

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