Update server widget

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

The description accurately describes the mutations (enable/disable, set channel), which aligns with the 'readOnlyHint: false' annotation. However, it adds no further behavioral context, such as required permissions or side effects (e.g., whether disabling the widget clears the channel). The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds limited value beyond that.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core actions without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to clarity.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about default behavior, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), and what happens to unspecified parameters when updating. The tool's simplicity allows room for more context, such as noting that the widget must already exist or that updates are partial.

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?

With schema coverage at 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description partially compensates by clarifying the roles of 'enabled' and 'channel'. The 'guild' parameter is mentioned in the schema but not elaborated in the description. Overall, the description adds some meaning but does not fully bridge the gap for the undocumented 'enabled' parameter.

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 the tool's actions: enabling/disabling the widget and setting its invite channel. It uses specific verbs ('enable', 'disable', 'point') and identifies the resource ('widget'). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_server_widget' and other update 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the read-only counterpart 'get_server_widget' or any conditions that would make this tool appropriate or inappropriate.

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