imgui_move_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states the mechanism (cursor offset before rendering) but doesn't disclose whether the offset is temporary or persists, whether the widget's stored position is modified, whether this affects hit-testing/collision, or whether subsequent renders re-apply the offset. For a mutation-like operation, this is thin coverage.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core mechanism efficiently. It includes the key qualifier 'before rendering' which adds meaningful context without bloat. No wasted words.

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?

This is a spatial mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Given the complexity of graphics positioning (offset semantics, persistence, interaction with layout/anchor systems), the description should provide more context about the effect scope. The many sibling positioning-related tools (imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_widget_anchor, imgui_move_window) create ambiguity that the description fails to resolve for an agent choosing among them.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the 'before rendering' timing context, which gives some conceptual meaning to the offset parameters (this is a pre-render cursor adjustment). However, it doesn't clarify sign conventions, pixel-relative-to-what origin, or how offset interacts with the widget's existing position. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource action: "Move a widget by applying a cursor offset before rendering." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like imgui_move_window (moves a window) and imgui_set_widget_size (resizes widgets). It could be slightly more specific about what 'move' means relative to widget positioning (vs anchors/layout), but the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 on when to use this vs alternatives like imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_widget_anchor, or imgui_set_widget_visibility. The description emphasizes 'applying a cursor offset before rendering,' implying this is a temporary/adjustment positioning rather than a layout-affecting operation, but this is only implied, not stated. No exclusions or alternative tool references provided.

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