add_slider_to_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of exposing behavioral traits. It reveals the mutation ('Add') and identifies the target widget blueprint and slider component, but it does not mention prerequisites, side effects, whether the blueprint must already exist, or whether it is saved/compiled 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 clean Args list, a KB pointer, and a minimal example. It contains no filler and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

All parameters are described, a usable invocation example is included, and the KB reference points to deeper documentation. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. Missing preconditions and behavioral side-effect notes keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description is the only semantic source for parameters. It explains all 8 parameters, clarifies position as [X, Y] and size as [Width, Height], and gives a concrete example for widget_name. It omits details like coordinate space and value bounds, but it covers the essential meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Slider widget' for adjustable values, with concrete example use cases like audio volume and sensitivity. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools such as add_text_block_to_widget, add_button_to_widget, and add_progress_bar_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 phrase 'for adjustable values (audio volume, sensitivity, etc.)' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or say when not to use it, but the use-case framing is enough to guide selection among the many widget-adding siblings.

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