delete_view

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Delete' adds no new information. It does not disclose any additional behaviors like permanence, cascading effects, or permission requirements. Given annotations cover the destruction aspect, the description contributes nothing beyond the structured metadata.

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, compact sentence: 'Delete a view.' There is no redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to the core purpose. For a simple operation with one parameter, this is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus annotations (destructive, idempotent, read-only false) cover the essential safety profile. The description itself is minimal but does not miss any critical information for a straightforward delete operation. However, it lacks any mention of return value or side effects beyond what annotations imply, so it is only minimally complete.

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% (the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'View ID to delete'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add any extra context about the id, such as format, constraints, or relation to other resources. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (delete) and the resource (a view). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling delete tools (delete_ticket, delete_user, etc.) by the resource name, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous, so an agent can infer the tool's scope.

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, prerequisites, or context such as 'use when a view is no longer needed.' There are no sibling tools that also delete views, so the use case is obvious from the name, but the description itself offers no explicit direction.

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