delete_project_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states the action ('Delete') which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, usage guidance, and expected outcomes, leaving too many gaps for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'projectId' and 'viewId' represent, their format (e.g., numeric IDs, names), or how to obtain them (e.g., from 'list_project_views'). This leaves both parameters semantically undefined.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a view from a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'delete_automation_rule', but the specificity of 'view' provides adequate differentiation for a basic understanding.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing view), exclusions, or related tools like 'list_project_views' for selection or 'update_project_view' for modification instead of deletion.

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