Create Data View

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the time_field validation failure mode (refused with the pattern's date fields listed, no data view created), the edge case of a pattern matching no index (accepted but time field unchecked), and the unused-name constraint. This is exactly the failure/auth-adjacent context annotations cannot carry.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add a distinct constraint rather than padding. It is dense but every clause (validation, name uniqueness, space) earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers all four parameters, the create/update boundary, validation failure behavior, and space scoping. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does: name (defaults to the index pattern, must be unused), time_field (must be a date field of the matched indices), space (targets a Kibana space by id, default is the default space), and index_pattern (example given). All four parameters gain meaning beyond the bare types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a Kibana data view over an index pattern') and gives a concrete example ('logs-*'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_data_view, which handles modifying existing views.

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 routes modification of an existing view to update_data_view, which is the key alternative an agent might confuse this with. It does not spell out general when-not-to-create conditions, but the create-vs-update boundary is clear.

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