MCP Tool View

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds the action list and example payloads, which clarify that drop and update are destructive, but it does not disclose deeper behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, or exact effects on existing views. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a compact, line-per-action list with example invocations. It front-loads the action name and gives a clear pattern. While somewhat lengthy, every line adds concrete utility, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema, the description provides example invocations that imply expected return messages (e.g., 'Created View.'). It also illustrates required payload fields for each action (e.g., create needs name/type, search needs query). Combined with the schema, it gives a solid understanding, though it does not explicitly describe return formats or error behavior.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond by providing concrete JSON payload examples for each action, which clarifies how to structure the payload object and which fields are relevant per action. This practical guidance is valuable for correct invocation.

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 enumerates each operation with a distinct verb and resource: create, drop, list, get, update, search. It explicitly focuses on ArangoSearch views, distinguishing from sibling tools like mcp.tool.collection and mcp.tool.graph. The examples provide concrete context for each action.

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 usage by showing example invocations for each action, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., 'use this for view management and search'). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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