create_or_replace_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the privilege requirement and error code, but says nothing about the destructive 'replace' semantics (an existing view and its grants are dropped), transaction/commit behavior, or invalidation of dependent objects.

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 action and scope, then the precondition. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is workable but incomplete: it omits the replacement consequences (lost grants, dependent-object invalidation) and any return/confirmation behavior, leaving an agent under-informed about side effects.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the schema default. The description only echoes the 'own schema' constraint and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (create or replace) plus resource (view) and scope (the MCP user's own schema). No sibling tool creates views, so the agent can distinguish this from list_views, get_ddl, or describe_table without opening a schema.

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 names the required CREATE VIEW privilege and the resulting ORA-01031 error, which is useful precondition context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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