run_editor_utility_widget

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description is not carrying that burden alone. It adds the registration/spawn semantics and the returned fields, but does not explain what the destructive flag implies here, whether re-running is safe, or what auth/editor state is required.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the action before the return listing, with no filler. Slightly terse given no usage line, but structurally clean.

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?

With no output schema, listing the return fields (tab_id, registration_name, registered, tab_exists, widget_spawned) is a genuinely useful addition. The main gap is missing guidance on when to call this versus the related widget-creation tools.

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% and the schema itself documents the alias relationship between blueprint_name and widget_blueprint_path. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific pair of verbs (spawn, register) plus the resource (Editor Utility Widget Blueprint) and the outcome (editor tab), which separates it from asset-creation siblings like create_editor_utility_widget_blueprint. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_editor_utility_widget_blueprint or run_asset_action_utility. The agent must infer that this is the 'open it as a tab' step rather than the 'create the asset' step.

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