Update server widget

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the specific operations (enable/disable, set invite channel) but does not disclose details like whether operations are mutually exclusive or what happens on partial updates. It meets the lower bar set by annotations but does not add rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 update tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers the core functionality adequately. It does not explain return values or edge cases, but these are not critical for an update operation. The presence of annotations for safety covers the main contextual 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 67% (guild and channel have descriptions, enabled does not). The description compensates by explaining 'enabled' as 'enable or disable the widget' and 'channel' as 'point its invite channel', adding meaning beyond the schema. This improves parameter understanding, especially for the undocumented boolean.

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 function: 'Enable or disable the widget, or point its invite channel.' It uses specific verbs and the resource (server widget), distinguishing it from siblings like get_server_widget (read-only) and update_server (general server settings).

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 context is clear: this tool is for modifying the server widget specifically. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over other update tools or provide exclusions. The description implies its usage by naming the exact actions, so it provides clear context without explicit alternatives.

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