widget_set_anchor

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 that values are set, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the call overwrites all four layout aspects, value ranges, or required widget state. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating 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 core description is a single efficient sentence, and the example adds concrete call-shape value without excessive prose. The KB link is a useful pointer. It is lean, though the example could have been more clearly separated from the prose.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing guidance on valid values, preconditions, and behavioral effects. The example helps but is not sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only lists conceptual groups and provides an all-zero example. It does not explain anchor coordinate conventions, units, or the meaning of alignment_x/alignment_y, and the example omits those two parameters entirely.

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: 'Set CanvasPanelSlot anchor, position, size, and alignment.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from generic widget tools like widget_set_property or widget_add_child. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it misses full differentiation.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the widget needing to be inside a Canvas Panel slot. The example and KB link imply usage, but the description leaves the decision context to the agent.

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