update_widget_settings

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is destructive (backs up page), non-idempotent (creates side effects), and open-world (affects external state). It details the two-call confirmation pattern, auto-flush, and verification via 'matches_requested'. This adds significant transparency that annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise, containing two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides important behavioral details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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, the description covers the key steps: backup, validation, auto-flush CSS, re-read, and verification. It mentions the response field 'matches_requested', which is helpful. However, it could be more complete by explaining the purpose of the output schema or clarifying the role of the confirmation parameter. Overall, it is adequately informative but has minor gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains the overall purpose of settings_patch (partial object) but does not detail individual parameters like site_id, page_id, widget_id, or confirmation. The mention of 'two-call confirmation' hints at the confirmation parameter but lacks specificity. Additional parameter-level descriptions would improve usability.

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 it performs a shallow-merge of a partial settings object into a widget, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add, duplicate, or move widgets. The verb 'merge' and resource 'widget' are specific, and the phrase 'shallow-merge a partial settings object' uniquely identifies the operation.

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 explains the tool's workflow (backup, validation, auto-flush, verification) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. It implies use for updating widget settings with safety guarantees, but more specific guidance on prerequisites or exclusion cases would improve it.

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