edit_model_view

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

Annotations only say it is a destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds substantial context beyond that: destructive-but-structural scope (filters/joins preserved), explicit rejection of aggregate/distinct rewrites, dry-run default preview, fingerprint plus metadata-gated ETag/fallback safety checks, saved readback verification, and that publishing is not automatic.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence adds a distinct constraint. The final sentence is a dense comma-spliced fragment ('Default preview, fingerprint and metadata-gated ETag/fallback checks, saved readback, no automatic publish') that is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 14 loosely documented parameters, the description covers safety gating, preview default, readback verification and the no-auto-publish consequence. It omits required permission/solution-prerequisite context and rollback behavior, leaving a modest gap.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the dryRun preview default, the fingerprint (expectedHash) and ETag (ifMatch) gating, and the four operation shapes in the operations array. It leaves allow_unprotected_write and the identifier/aliasing parameters unexplained, which holds it below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Structurally edit a public system view') and then enumerates the exact edit categories: add/remove root display columns, set widths, replace root-field ordering. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_model_form or update_model_column_settings.

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?

Gives clear scope boundaries — it preserves filters/joins/FetchXML attributes and rejects aggregate/distinct query rewrites, which tells the agent when this tool is inappropriate. It stops short of naming a specific alternative for those rejected rewrites, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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