update_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changes are applied 'live', preserves cards unless changes contains a cards key, returns a backup_id (indicating backups), and supports dry_run. It does not detail permission requirements or error handling, but the key behaviors are covered.

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 succinctly structured with a one-line summary, a critical preservation note, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter, the return format (backup_id or dry-run preview), and a key behavioral nuance (card preservation). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure further, and the description is complete for an update tool.

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 description explains each parameter in the 'Args' section: url_path (default dashboard), view (index or path/title match), changes (merge dict with example), and dry_run (preview). This adds meaning far beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. The example clarifies the changes format.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'view's properties' with examples (title, path, icon). It distinguishes from siblings like add_view and remove_view by focusing on modifying an existing view's properties. The parenthetical '(live)' adds immediacy.

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 implies usage for updating existing views and provides a critical nuance about cards preservation unless intentionally overridden. It also mentions dry_run for previewing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_view or set_dashboard_config, though the sibling names make it inferable.

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