update_title_widgetUpdate a TITLE widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | New title text. | |
| heading | No | New heading level. | |
| widget_id | Yes | Widget ID (from list_widgets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The title 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?
The annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'update.' It does not disclose partial-update behavior, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects, and it does not contradict the 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 short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient clarity. The single sentence repeats the tool name and provides no substantive information.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, an agent can minimally call it correctly. However, the description leaves important usage context, such as when to choose this over sibling widget updates, entirely unstated.
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 title, heading, and widget_id are each documented in the schema, including the heading enum. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Update a TITLE widget.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It names the target resource but does not say what can be updated or how it differs from sibling update_*_widget tools.
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 add_title_widget or the many other update_*_widget siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
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.