alterios_upsert_view_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It only hints at write permission requirements but fails to disclose other behaviors such as whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or what happens on conflict. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 very concise (one sentence), which aids readability, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load critical details. It is under-informative for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 (10 parameters, no param descriptions, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values or process nuances, relying on the output schema (unseen) but lacking context for effective invocation.

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 and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent sees only parameter names from the schema. The description adds no meaning, violating the baseline expectation that it should compensate for low coverage.

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 states the tool plans or creates/updates an Alterios view entity, which is a clear verb+resource. It also mentions a requirement (write gates). However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like alterios_upsert_view or alterios_upsert_view_field, missing an opportunity to clarify what a 'view entity' is in this context.

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 provides a prerequisite ('explicit write gates') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Without differentiation among sibling upsert tools, an agent may struggle to select the correct one.

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