update_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the partial update semantics and that fields are preserved unless explicitly changed. It does not mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but for a standard update operation this is sufficient.

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 two sentences: the first lists what can be updated, the second gives usage advice. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 has 5 parameters with a detailed schema, the description provides enough context for understanding the update operation. It explains partial update and recommended workflow. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., updated view object or confirmation), which is a minor gap.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by stating 'Only fields you pass are changed — omitted fields are preserved,' which clarifies the partial update behavior beyond the schema. It also recommends using get_view first, aiding parameter usage.

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 explicitly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'view', and lists the updatable components: title, description, conditions, and/or output. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_view and delete_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 advises to 'use get_view first to retrieve and modify the current structure', providing a clear workflow. It also explains the partial update behavior: 'Only fields you pass are changed — omitted fields are preserved.' This gives good usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool.

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