Update Table View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description confirms mutation with partial update and idempotency. No contradictions. Adds specifics on what fields can change and examples but does not disclose permissions or side effects beyond annotations. Adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Description is moderately sized with effective front-loading (verb+resource). Includes necessary examples and operator list. Could potentially be slightly more concise, but structure is good and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given complexity (7 params, nested objects), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides partial update semantics, examples, and operator list. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema) but covers the main usage context well. Minor gap: no guidance on prerequisite steps like obtaining viewId, but acceptable.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by listing filter operators and providing concrete JSON examples for settings.columns and settings.group_by, clarifying complex nested parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it updates an existing table-type board view and enumerates what can be changed (name, filters, sort, tags, settings). The title 'Update Table View' reinforces the resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'update_view' (which may cover other view types), but the context is sufficient.

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?

Explicitly states partial update behavior: 'Provide only the fields you want to change. Omitted fields are left unchanged.' This is a key usage guideline. While it doesn't compare to alternatives like create_view_table or update_view, the context allows inference.

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