edit_widget_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states 'Mutate' implying changes, lists ops, and mentions the compile parameter note from schema. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or failure modes, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence immediately stating the purpose and operations. Every sentence earns its place without any 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 complexity (9 parameters, 3 operations, no output schema), the description lacks crucial context such as what the result of each operation is, error scenarios, or how changes persist. The compile note is only in the schema. Therefore, completeness is poor.

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 description coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The tool description adds the operation enum list but little else beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 mutates a widget tree, lists the three operations, and references a specific use case (UE 5.7 EUW WidgetTree population). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_widget_tree and other non-editing tools.

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 the operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers a brief note on the compile parameter regarding batching, but lacks broader usage context or exclusions.

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