update_view_v1_user_views__clerk_id___slug__patch

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: config edits go to draft_config for published views, slug changes only on drafts. Auth method is mentioned. It does not elaborate on error handling or return values.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. Front-loads endpoint, auth, then behavior. Each sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema and low schema coverage (33%) mean the description should compensate. It explains some behaviors but not return values, error cases, or full parameter constraints. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description adds context beyond the schema: slug changes restricted to drafts, config edits go to draft_config. The schema details the body properties well, but the description gives behavioral rules for parameters, especially config and slug.

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 it updates a user view, distinguishing between published and draft behavior with specific rules for config edits and slug changes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_view, publish_view, etc.

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 implies when to use this tool (to update a view) and provides constraints (slug changes only on drafts), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention 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.