update_saved_view

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

Annotations only say the call is mutating and idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing partial-update behavior and warning that filter_rules replaces the entire array. It also adds a not-a-merge caveat, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the most important fact (ONE saved view, PATCH) and then pack the field list and the filter_rules caveat with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a mutating update tool with seven parameters and no output schema, this description covers partial update behavior, editable fields, and the one dangerous merge-vs-replace pitfall. It does not discuss return values or error cases, but those are not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensates by enumerating all editable fields and adding the key semantics that only supplied fields change. It also explains the special filter_rules replacement behavior. It does not elaborate on each field's meaning, but the property names and schema types make most of them self-evident.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource ('Update fields on ONE saved view') and immediately clarifies the PATCH semantics. It lists exactly which fields are editable, which distinguishes it clearly from create_saved_view, delete_saved_view, and list_saved_views.

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 PATCH framing and 'only fields you supply are changed' make the intended use clear: partial modification of an existing saved view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no agent could mistake this for creation, listing, or deletion.

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