dedupe_viewpoints

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses destructive behavior (removes duplicates), backup option, recalculated counters, and that no master file is needed. Does not discuss error handling or auth, but covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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?

Five lines, each serving a purpose: core action, parameter details, return value, backup behavior. No filler; front-loaded with main verb. Efficient and to the point.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives good coverage: parameters explained, return type (list of removed), side effects (counter recalc, backup). Could mention error cases or file format, but sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage; description explains the 'by' parameter with two options and their scopes, and the 'backup' parameter. The 'xml' parameter is left implicit but understandable. Adds meaningful detail beyond the minimal schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (dedupe) and resource (viewpoints in a file), with specific modes (by name or by guid). It distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_viewpoints or sort_viewpoints by focusing solely on removal of duplicates.

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?

Provides internal usage guidance for by and backup parameters, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternative tools. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, though the context of removing duplicates is clear.

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