add_text_block_to_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Add[s]' a text block, implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects on the blueprint, whether compilation is required, failure modes if the widget does not exist, or whether existing text blocks are overwritten. The description is mostly a parameter list, not a behavioral contract.

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 front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a compact parameter list, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Each section serves a distinct purpose and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool: it names every parameter, provides formats and units, includes a KB reference, and shows a realistic example. It is slightly incomplete only in missing behavioral context such as prerequisites and side effects, but those gaps are already reflected in the behavioral transparency score.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 7 parameters with meaningful semantics: widget_name and text_block_name as component identifiers, text as display text, position as [X, Y] canvas coordinates, size as [Width, Height], font_size in points, and color as [R, G, B, A] in 0.0-1.0 range. The example also clarifies the expected string path format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Text Block to a Widget Blueprint.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_button_to_widget or add_image_to_widget by naming the exact component type being added. The parameter list further confirms the operation without ambiguity.

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 implies usage based on the name and opening sentence, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_button_to_widget or set_text_block_binding. There is no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites like the widget blueprint needing to exist. The KB link is a pointer but not explicit usage guidance.

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