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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update'. It does not disclose whether existing embed settings are replaced, whether partial updates are allowed, or any side effects on rendered pages.

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, short sentence with no filler words. It is efficient but so terse that it adds little information beyond the tool's title.

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 all three parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the description omits usage context, such as prerequisites (e.g., the widget must already exist) and whether link_url is required for certain embed types.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, such as whether embed_type and link_url interact or which combinations are valid.

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 ('Update') and a specific resource type ('EMBED widget'), which differentiates it from sibling update_*_widget tools. However, it closely mirrors the title and offers no additional scoping details beyond the resource type.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_embed_widget, delete_widget, or other update_*_widget tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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