Update View

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that only provided fields are updated (partial update semantics despite PUT), which is not expressed in the annotations. It does not discuss error conditions or permissions, but the essential mutation behavior is disclosed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the endpoint and purpose, followed by a concise usage note. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague words. It is an excellent example of minimal yet informative description.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate because the schema thoroughly documents each parameter and annotations provide safety cues. It does not mention response format or error scenarios, but for an update operation with a known endpoint, this is sufficient. The description could be slightly richer, but it is not incomplete enough to warrant a lower score.

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?

All 13 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to restate them. The only parameter-related addition is 'Only include fields to modify,' which is a general note rather than per-parameter meaning. This meets the baseline for comprehensive schema coverage but adds little beyond the schema.

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 'Update an existing view by ID' and includes the HTTP method PUT, clearly indicating this tool modifies an existing view. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gorgias_create_view, gorgias_get_view, and gorgias_delete_view. The phrase 'Only include fields to modify' further clarifies its partial-update purpose.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to update an existing view, identified by ID. It also advises to include only the fields to modify, which is a practical usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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