add_progress_bar_to_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the additive nature clear and identifies the target widget blueprint, but it does not explain side effects such as in-place mutation of the widget asset, potential overwriting of an existing component with the same name, or whether compilation/saving is needed afterward.

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 compact and well structured: a one-line purpose, a tight parameter list, a knowledge-base pointer, and a concrete example. Every part adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has seven parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers all of them, provides array format conventions, includes a KB reference, and supplies a realistic invocation example. The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not required here.

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?

The schema provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining all seven arguments: widget_name, progress_bar_name, position format, size format, color channel order, and percent range. This gives an agent complete parameter-level understanding beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Add a Progress Bar widget') and immediately identifies the use case ('useful for health/ammo bars'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling widget-addition tools like add_text_block_to_widget or add_button_to_widget.

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 by framing the tool as useful for health/ammo bars, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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