update_button_widgetUpdate a BUTTON widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | No | New click-through URL. | |
| text | No | New button label. | |
| widget_id | Yes | Widget ID (from list_widgets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The button widget as saved, with the update applied. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / widget_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "widget_id"
+]Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-destructive mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this—it doesn't state whether the update replaces all fields or only provided ones, or what side effects occur. Since the description carries little weight and annotations are minimal, this is a notable 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 description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and substance—it's not front-loaded with key details because there are none. It's adequately short but not well-structured for an agent needing operational context.
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 an update tool with only three parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the semantics of updating (e.g., whether link and text are optional and only provided fields change), nor does it mention the required widget_id. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the operational behavior is under-specified.
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 fully documents each parameter (widget_id, link, text) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Update a BUTTON widget'), which differentiates it from other update_widget tools by naming the widget type. However, it adds no detail beyond the title and doesn't describe what updating entails, making it only slightly more informative than a tautology.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for modifying an existing button widget's link or text, nor does it contrast with add_button_widget or other update tools. The agent is left with no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.