Views Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers nothing: it does not say whether updates are full replacements or partial merges, whether unspecified fields are cleared, what permissions are needed, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with 18 parameters, this is a serious transparency gap.

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 single sentence is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; it is not front-loaded with anything useful. Nothing is wasted, but nothing substantive is communicated either.

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?

With 18 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a mutation context, the description is nowhere near complete. The presence of an output schema only excuses the absence of return-value documentation, not the missing parameter and behavior guidance.

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% across 18 parameters, and the description compensates with zero information. Parameters like 'row', 'sort', 'style', 'pager', 'relationships', and 'contextual_filters' are opaque typed objects with no explanation anywhere; the agent cannot know the expected shape or semantics of any of them.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing view"), so the operation is identifiable. However it offers no differentiation from the many sibling view tools (views_create, views_get, views_delete, views_execute, views_export), and says nothing about what parts of a view can be updated. Purpose is recognizable but minimal.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as views_create for new views or views_get to inspect before updating. The agent must infer that it should call views_get first to discover view structure.

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