vk_put_projects_18c03cfa3b5a

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful context: it mentions the raw proxy nature, parameter alias conventions (camelCase and snake_case), top-level path/query parameters, and authentication. However, it describes the required 'body' as 'optional', contradicting the schema, and does not disclose response behavior or side effects beyond creation.

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 fairly compact but redundant: 'Create a project view' appears twice in the opening sentences. The remaining sentences each add useful information, but the repetition makes it slightly less crisp than it could be.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, payload handling, aliases, and authentication. However, it lacks details about what fields the project view body should contain, what the response looks like, and it contains the body-optional inconsistency. No output schema exists, so some return-value guidance would improve completeness.

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 explaining JSON payload placement, parameter aliases, and top-level path/query fields. But it incorrectly labels the 'body' parameter as optional while the schema marks it required, and it claims 'Project ID Required' though 'project' is not in the schema's required list, creating confusion.

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 action ('Create a project view') and the resource ('project view'), with the exact REST endpoint 'PUT /projects/{project}/views'. This distinguishes it from the many sibling vk_put_projects_* tools.

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?

It provides clear context: create a project view in a specific project via a raw REST proxy, and notes that authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest a higher-level alternative, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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