remove_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly warns 'Removes the view and all its cards,' mentions dry_run for previewing, and notes the returned backup_id, giving an agent risk awareness.

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: a clear headline, a concise warning, then an Args/Returns breakdown. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool, it covers all arguments, the destructive consequence, and the backup/dry-run result. It could additionally mention restore_dashboard as the undo path, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, so the Args section is the sole semantic source. It explains url_path default behavior, view matching by index/path/title, and dry_run's preview semantics, adding substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('view from a dashboard'), and the warning 'Removes the view and all its cards' clarifies scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_card and update_view.

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 opening line states the operation clearly and the dry_run parameter gives a preview/safety path, which is an implicit usage recommendation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for removing only cards or restoring backups.

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