alterios_upsert_view_field

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the need for write gates but fails to explain side effects, destructiveness, idempotency, or what 'plan' entails. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, so agents cannot infer return behavior without inspecting the schema.

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 short (2 sentences) and avoids verbosity, but it is under-specified. It lacks critical details, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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 high complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, param dependencies, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent with inadequate context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, yet the tool description provides no explanations for any of the 13 parameters. Parameter names like 'mname', 'dry_run', and 'allow_unmanaged_update' remain ambiguous, offering no semantic value beyond their titles.

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 tool's action: 'Plan or add/update an Alterios view field'. The verb 'upsert' is specific and the resource 'view field' distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other entities like views or fields. However, it could be more precise about what constitutes a 'view field' and how it differs from similar tools like alterios_upsert_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 mentions that 'Execution requires explicit write gates', which hints at a prerequisite, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alterios_upsert_view_entity or alterios_upsert_field). No information on when not to use it or context for selection is given.

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