manage_bitable_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the limitation on updates, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as permissions, side effects of delete, rate limits, or idempotency. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the essential purpose and a critical caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, conditional parameter requirements based on action), the description is minimal. It does not explain the expected outcomes of each action or how parameters interact. The schema fills some gaps, but the description alone would leave an agent uncertain about the full context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only providing context about the update limitation. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states that the tool manages views inside a Bitable table, listing the specific actions (list, create, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_bitable_record or manage_bitable_table, which manage different resources.

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 lists the available actions and explicitly notes that the API does not support view update, advising to recreate with a new name to change. This gives clear guidance on what not to do and a workaround, though it does not explicitly contrast with other tools beyond the context.

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