update-view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a UI view' without revealing any side effects, permissions required, idempotency, whether updates are partial or full replacements, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. While brevity is positive, this level of brevity sacrifices necessary information, making it less useful than a slightly longer description that could explain parameter semantics or usage context.

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's complexity (an update operation with an arbitrary updates object, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what fields can be updated, whether the update is partial or complete, or how the view_id and updates parameters relate. The minimal description leaves too much to inference.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of view_id or the updates object. 'Update a UI view' in no way clarifies that view_id is the identifier of the view to modify or that updates is a dictionary of properties to change. The agent is left with no parameter guidance beyond bare schema types.

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 'Update a UI view' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (UI view), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-view, delete-view, and get-view. However, it lacks additional scope or context that would elevate it to a 5, such as what specific aspects of the view can be updated.

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, such as create-view for new views or get-view for retrieval. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate. It is a bare statement with no usage context.

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