Delete saved view

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: deleting a saved view does not affect documents. However, it does not explain what happens if the id does not exist or whether the deletion is reversible, though those are partially covered by the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a useful caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the key purpose and the most relevant side-effect boundary (documents unaffected). The annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. Missing details like return values or error behavior would be nice, but they are not critical given the simplicity and the existing annotations.

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% and the only parameter 'id' has no description in the schema. The tool name and description make it reasonably clear that 'id' represents the saved view to remove, but the description does not explicitly state this or add any format/precondition details beyond the schema. The parameter is simple enough that this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 a specific action ('Remove a saved view') on a specific resource, and the added sentence 'Documents are unaffected' disambiguates it from other destructive tools like delete_document. This makes the tool's scope immediately obvious even among many sibling delete operations.

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?

The description implies the tool is for deleting saved views but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as update_saved_view or get_saved_view, and no prerequisites or ownership conditions are mentioned. The distinction from document deletion is helpful but not a full usage guideline.

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