alterios_upsert_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds only that execution requires explicit write gates, but fails to disclose other important behaviors like side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the view already 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 description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, the second sentence about write gates could be more integrated, and the overall brevity leaves gaps.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, with 11 parameters and 0% coverage, the description is far from complete. It lacks details on parameter relationships, defaults, and usage scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it does not. It mentions no parameter purpose, leaving the agent reliant solely on the schema titles, which are insufficient for 11 parameters.

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 verb (plan or create/update) and resource (view). It mentions 'execution requires explicit write gates,' which hints at authorization, but does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_view_field.

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 only states what the tool does and mentions write gates. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., alterios_upsert_view_field or alterios_upsert_form), nor does it specify when not to use it.

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