Update View

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description complements this by stating the partial update behavior, which is key. It also provides filter operators and examples, adding behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, explains the behavior (partial update), lists supported operators, and gives two clear examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, but schema descriptions are thorough. The description adequately covers the main fields (name, filter, sort) and provides examples. It handles the complex settings parameter by referencing another tool. While not exhaustive, it gives sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for filter rules (people and status columns), listing filter operators, and offering guidance on the settings parameter (directing to update_view_table). This enriches the meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing board view (tab) — change its name, filter rules, or sort order.' It specifies the exact resources affected (board view/tab) and the actions (change name, filter, sort). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_view or delete_view.

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 explains when to use this tool: 'Provide only the fields you want to change. Omitted fields are left unchanged.' This gives clear guidance on partial updates. Additionally, the settings parameter description explicitly prefers the update_view_table tool for TABLE views, offering an alternative. However, it does not cover all contexts or exclusions.

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