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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful partial-update context, but it does not go further to disclose validation behavior, failure modes, or how other properties are preserved.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Purpose, applicability, and usage guidance are all front-loaded, and each sentence contributes value.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters and required fields, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to repeat return details. The main omission is explicit guidance on when to choose this generic tool over the many per-type update_widget siblings.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds the key semantic that only supplied dimensions are changed. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema, though 'dimensions' is slightly ambiguous with respect to x/y position versus width/height.

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 ('Move or resize a widget') and notes it works for any widget type, so an agent can understand the tool's scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like update_*_widget, so it stops short of the highest differentiation bar.

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 gives practical guidance: pass only the dimensions you want to change, which clarifies partial updates and how to use the tool. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a type-specific update_*_widget instead, so it lacks full when-not/alternative guidance.

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