Delete favourite view

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real information beyond them: deletion is limited to the saved view while planning data is untouched, and the operation is reversible via 'One undo step.' It still doesn't say what the response contains or whether it errors when the name is unknown.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the blocking constraint, then scope, alternative tool, and undo behavior. No filler or restated purpose.

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 single-parameter destructive delete with an output schema available, the description covers the prerequisites, the side-effect boundary, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema description already states it is the name from rillsoft_view_favorite_list. The description repeats that sourcing hint without adding format, casing, or matching semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deletes the favourite view') and immediately scopes it to the 'name' in the current project. It is trivially distinguishable from rillsoft_view_favorite_list (enumeration) and rillsoft_view_favorite_create, both of which it names or implies.

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 the one condition that blocks use (the currently visible favourite view), gives the concrete remedy (switch via rillsoft_view_state_apply), and clarifies that any other favourite is fair game even while visible. It also routes the agent to rillsoft_view_favorite_list to discover valid names.

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