create_view

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a view is created, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing data. For a mutation operation, this is insufficient.

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 with no filler or redundancy, making it concise. However, it is underspecified, which detracts from its usefulness. It earns a 4 because it is well-structured and to the point, though it could be richer.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide substantial context. It only states the basic action and omits return values, prerequisites, or how the 'definition' object should be formed. This is incomplete for a creation tool in a complex SharePoint environment.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'listId' and 'definition' are left entirely to the schema, and 'definition' is particularly vague. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the property names, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a view in a SharePoint list.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('view in a SharePoint list'), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_view or apply_view_update. 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_view is for new views, whereas apply_view_update is for modifying existing ones, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as an existing list. This is a clear gap in usage context.

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