preview_view_update

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

The word 'preview' implies a non-destructive operation, which is a key behavioral trait, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are applied, nor does it disclose what the preview returns (e.g., a diff, validation errors, updated view). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but remains thin on details.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which lowers it slightly from a perfect score.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks essential context about the 'updates' object structure, the expected return value, and how this preview differs from the apply counterpart. The sibling tool apply_view_update exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent to infer workflow placement.

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 adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain what 'updates' should contain (e.g., view properties, field mappings) or how listId and viewId relate. The nested object schema is entirely opaque, leaving the agent without guidance on constructing valid inputs.

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: 'Preview updating a SharePoint list view.' It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('list view'), which distinguishes it from apply_view_update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other preview tools like preview_view_formatting_update, though the scope is general view updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using this before apply_view_update, no exclusions, and no comparison with related preview tools. The description simply states the action without context.

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