create_shared_view

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It discloses the permission requirement, the fact that filters are validated and unknown fields are refused, and the visibility semantics, which is good. It does not say what the tool returns (for example, a view ID) or whether name collisions fail, so the disclosure is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the definition, then permissions, validation, and a worked example. It is dense but every sentence carries information. The inline JSON example makes the paragraph long, though it is justified by the nested schema.

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 nested filter objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition covers permissions, validation rules, scoping, and a concrete example. The only real gap is the return value, which matters if the agent must reference the new view afterward.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by working through a full example payload that shows the nested rules structure, the tags 'contains' value format as a text array, and how status and tag conditions combine, which is real added meaning for a complex nested 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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Creates a shared view') and immediately defines what a shared view is: a saved filter on the conversation list, scoped to every agent or to one team. It also draws a boundary by noting that editing and deleting happen in the web UI, so this tool cannot be confused with update_shared_view or delete_shared_view.

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 states the prerequisite (`shared_views:manage` permission) and where the tool's scope ends (editing and deleting are web-UI only). It does not name a read tool such as get_all_shared_views, but it gives a clear context for use and an explicit exclusion.

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