update_view

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the HTTP PUT method and body formatting, but it does not clarify whether this is a full replacement or partial update, what happens to omitted fields, or whether special permissions are required.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no extraneous content. It is efficient, although the body instruction remains somewhat cryptic.

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 destructive update tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the agent still lacks explanation of body field semantics, partial-vs-full update behavior, and required permissions.

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% for three required parameters. The description maps project_id and view_id to the URL and mentions supplying API fields in the body, but it does not explain id, title, position, project_id in the body, or the relationship between body.id and view_id. The note about JSON-encoded string fields is too vague to compensate.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Updates view") and reinforces it with the concrete endpoint PUT /project/{project_id}/views/{view_id}. It is distinguishable from create_view, get_view, and delete_view by verb, though it does not explicitly contrast with set_view_positions.

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?

It implies use for updating an existing view but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as set_view_positions or create_view. The agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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