create_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Create') but omits details on idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or what happens if a view with the same name already exists. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the second clarifies an important exclusion. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 has 8 parameters, 3 required, complex nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., view ID), how to construct the raw payloads like filter or sorts, or any prerequisites. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone, which may lack behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the need for 'database_id' and reinforces that dashboard-related parameters are unsupported. This provides slight context but does not significantly enhance understanding of the complex raw payload parameters (filter, sorts, configuration, etc.).

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 the tool creates a Notion database view ('Create a Notion database view') and specifies the required parameter 'database_id'. It differentiates from sibling tools like delete_view or update_view by focusing on creation, and explicitly excludes unsupported view types (dashboard views, dashboard widget placement). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other view manipulation tools.

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 some usage guidance by noting the required 'database_id' and explicitly stating what is not supported (dashboard views and widget placement). However, it does not advise when to use this tool vs. sibling tools like list_views or update_view, nor does it mention prerequisites or success conditions.

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