gsa_update_views

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers very little: it does not say whether a UI/window must be open, whether the refresh is server-side or display-only, whether it is idempotent, or what state it mutates. Only the 'visible views' scope hints at behavior.

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 short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient, though so terse that it edges toward under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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, and the tool is parameterless, which keeps the surface small. Still, with zero annotations and a dense cluster of sibling view tools, the description omits the operational context (when a refresh is needed and what it affects) that an agent would want.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed here.

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 states a specific verb (refresh) and resource (GSA views) with a scope qualifier (all visible), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling view tools such as gsa_print_view, gsa_create_new_view, or gsa_rescale_view_to_fit, which an agent must guess between.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling view tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'refresh', leaving the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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