delete_shared_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: permanence, irreversibility, that child conversations survive, the 404 behavior on wrong view type, and the required permission scope. The only real gap is the response shape for a successful delete, which is not mentioned and no output schema exists.

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 body is dense and front-loaded, packing the effect, side effects, failure mode, and permission into a few lines. The duplicated "Delete Shared View" header line and the trailing "Tags: Views" add little but cost only a line each.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, permissions, and edge-case failure. Missing only the success response detail, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as the view path parameter, so the description adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies; there is no enum or ID-format guidance to add.

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?

"Permanently deletes a shared view" gives a specific verb and resource, and the follow-on clause scopes the blast radius ("the conversations are untouched"). The endpoint and "Shared View" naming make it unambiguously distinct from the delete_contact/delete_tag/delete_team siblings.

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?

It states a concrete exclusion ("A personal view answers 404") and a prerequisite (`shared_views:manage`), so an agent knows both the eligibility condition and the auth requirement before calling. No sibling alternative is named, but the exclusions still give clear selection context.

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