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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the modifiability is clear. The description adds the list of module types and parameter requirements but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions or side effects.

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 dense paragraph that starts with the purpose and then provides the module type mapping and requirements. It is front-loaded and concise, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters and annotations provide safety hints, the description adequately explains the core functionality and parameter dependencies. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., created widget ID), which is a gap for a creation tool without an output schema.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters (100%), the description provides crucial grouping by module_type, indicating which parameters are needed for specific types (e.g., module_id, date_property_id, change_period for type 17). This adds meaning beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Add widget to portal dashboard' and lists the module types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_portal_menu_item. It is specific about the resource (dashboard item) and verb (add).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No context about prerequisites or dependencies.

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