gsa_create_new_view

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It signals persistence ('saved') but says nothing about what happens if a view with that name already exists, whether the current view state is captured, or what authorization/lifecycle constraints apply to a mutation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is good structure. But the brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than efficiency, so it sits at minimum-viable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented required parameter, the description omits the naming/duplication semantics and side effects an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 0%, so the single required parameter 'name' is documented nowhere. The description adds no meaning about the name's role (identifier vs. label), uniqueness requirements, or accepted format, leaving the agent to guess.

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+resource combination ('Create a new saved graphic view'), which is clearly a write operation distinct from siblings like gsa_print_view or gsa_update_views. It does not, however, name or contrast with those siblings, so the agent must infer the routing.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings such as gsa_save_view_to_file, gsa_update_views, and gsa_set_view_* in the same family, the definition never says when a new view should be created versus reusing or updating an existing one.

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