Create Data View

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

Annotations declare this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful context on time_field for time-series data and the space scoping with its default, but says nothing about auth needs, failure modes, or behavior when a view already exists.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by optional fields and the space qualifier. Tight and readable, with only minor overlap between the first sentence and the parameter statements.

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 explained, and the description covers all four parameters plus the space default. Gaps remain around duplicate-view behavior and permissions, but for a straightforward create tool this is largely complete.

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 burden and largely succeeds: it clarifies index_pattern via an example, name as a display name, time_field as for time-series data, and space as targeting a Kibana space by id with a default. This meaningfully compensates for the empty 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Kibana data view) with the object it operates over (an index pattern like 'logs-*'). The create/list/describe split among siblings is inferable from the verb, so an agent can tell it apart from list_data_views and describe_data_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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the index-pattern example, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. index must exist), and no reference to alternatives like list_data_views or describe_data_view. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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