invariance_saved_view_update

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it's a partial patch, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, permissions, or side effects beyond the patch. openWorldHint is not contradicted.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that leads with the core purpose. No filler or redundant phrasing. The partial-update behavior is stated immediately.

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 tool with 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't cover parameter explanations, required id, return behavior, or common errors. Given the low schema coverage and mutation nature, more context is expected.

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 only 17% (only spec has a description), so the description should compensate for the other five parameters. It does not mention any of them or explain how they relate to the partial update. It adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Patch') and the resource ('a saved view'), and specifies it's a partial update. It distinguishes from create/delete via 'patch' semantics, though it doesn't explicitly say it operates on an existing view. The phrase 'only included fields change' adds specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create or delete tools. It doesn't mention that the view must already exist, nor any prerequisites or context. The description focuses on behavior rather than usage.

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