wordpress_update_widget

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing widget settings. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a write operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded but under-specified, lacking necessary details that would justify a higher score for completeness in structure.

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 (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 0%, meaning parameters 'widgetId' and 'instance' have no schema descriptions. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'widgetId' refers to, what 'instance' contains, or how to structure the configuration object. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Update widget configuration' clearly states the action (update) and target (widget configuration), which is better than a tautology. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'configuration' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wordpress_get_widgets' or 'wordpress_delete_widget', which handle widgets differently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing widget), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'wordpress_get_widgets' for viewing or 'wordpress_delete_widget' for removal, leaving usage context unclear.

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