delete_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Delete' implies destructive mutation, but the description doesn't state that deletion is irreversible, whether associated data is affected, whether permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste, which is good. However, it's at the border of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — a destructive operation with considerable behavioral implications gets only one terse sentence. Brevity alone doesn't earn a high score when substance is missing.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter. For a delete operation, the description should at minimum note irreversibility, any cascading effects, or permission requirements. The one-parameter tool has minimal complexity, which raises the baseline slightly, but the destruction semantics warrant more disclosure than provided.

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 coverage is 100% (view_id documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds no information beyond the schema — the view_id parameter is self-explanatory. The description doesn't add format, scope, or constraint details, but the schema alone adequately documents the single parameter.

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 'Delete a view' has a clear verb (delete) and resource (view), establishing the core purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but 'delete_view' is unique among siblings (there's no competing delete of views), so the purpose is clear though minimal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like get_view, get_list_views, get_workspace_views etc., but no context clarifies that deletion should only occur after confirming the view exists, or that this is irreversible. No exclusions or alternatives named.

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