UpdateView

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

The description discloses the process flow: 'Locks, updates, unlocks, and optionally activates', which is helpful for understanding side effects. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention prerequisites, authorization needs, or potential impact on dependencies.

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 short but contains redundancy: 'Operation: Update, Create. Subject: View. Will be useful for updating or creating view.' The duplicated info could be merged. Overall, it is reasonably concise.

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 complexity (modification tool, no output schema, 4 params, many siblings), the description explains the basic process but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, and the 'create' aspect is misleading. It covers the essentials but has 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the locking/activation behavior, which clarifies the role of the 'activate' parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the transport_request parameter beyond what's in 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 states the specific verb 'Update' and resource 'DDL source code of an existing CDS View or Classic View', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like CreateView or CheckView. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'updating or creating view' but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over alternatives like CreateView. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving ambiguity.

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