add_named_slot_to_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the mutation (adding a slot) but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., widget must exist), side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations (there are none), but it leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with the core action, adds a brief explanation of the concept, lists parameters with descriptions, references a KB, and includes an example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers the core function and parameter meaning but misses critical context: whether the widget must already exist, what happens if the slot name is duplicated, and the output format (though an output schema exists). It provides a KB reference for deeper context, but the immediate operational details are incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters with brief descriptions: widget_name, slot_name, position as [X,Y], and size as [Width,Height]. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but the descriptions are minimal and don't specify optionality or constraints. The example helps, but the coverage is only partial.

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 the action: 'Add a Named Slot placeholder to a Widget Blueprint.' It also explains the purpose of Named Slots and why they are essential, distinguishing this tool from sibling widget-adding tools like add_text_block_to_widget or add_button_to_widget. The specific verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when the widget is used as a parent and for reusable frame/container widgets. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies the appropriate scenario. The example further clarifies usage.

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