update_view

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update' but does not reveal side effects (e.g., changes are immediate for all viewers), required permissions, or whether fields are nullable or partially updated. The description is too vague to prepare an agent for the mutation's impact.

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 (one sentence), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action, but the single sentence does not earn its place by providing sufficient guidance. A slightly longer description with more context would improve structure.

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 (10 parameters with many nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. An agent needs information about return values, error conditions, and how the configuration is applied. The description fails to provide context for safe and correct invocation.

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 has 10 parameters with only 10% description coverage (only view_id described). The description adds no parameter-specific details, failing to clarify what the 'configuration' includes (e.g., name, type, grouping). An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Update a View's configuration.' It clearly indicates the tool modifies a view, which distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_view. However, it does not specify what aspects of configuration can be updated (e.g., name, type, grouping), which would enhance clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_view or delete_view. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., view must exist) or restrictions (e.g., permissions needed). The sibling list includes create_view and delete_view, but the description does not help an agent decide which to invoke.

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