update_view

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

The annotations already declare this as a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the description is not inconsistent. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as whether updating conditions is a merge or replace operation, or whether existing values are cleared when omitted. The bar is lower given annotations, but zero additional disclosure is provided.

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 sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified; it restates the name without adding operational detail. It is not overly verbose, but it is too lean to be genuinely useful. This is closer to a label than a functional description.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — nested conditions object, four optional fields, no output schema — the description is too brief to be fully complete. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement), which is critical for an agent to invoke it correctly. The schema and annotations cover structure and safety, but the behavioral contract is left implicit.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, each with its own description. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema thoroughly documents the fields. The description does not clarify interactions between parameters, such as whether omitting 'title' leaves it unchanged.

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 uses the verb 'Update' and the resource 'view', making the core action unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_view, delete_view, and list_views by the operation name. However, it omits any specific details about what updating entails, but the schema provides those fields.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_ticket or create_view. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about typical use cases. The description is purely a restatement of the tool's name and offers no decision support.

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