imgui_remove_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. It doesn't state whether removing a widget destroys associated state, affects children, triggers re-layout, or is reversible (unlike imgui_undo/redo which exist as siblings suggesting reversibility might be available). No mention of what happens to references or whether the operation persists.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, accurate. It's appropriately short for a simple removal operation. No redundancy or 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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. A one-line description leaves significant gaps: no error behavior, no prerequisites, no mention of reversibility despite undo/redo siblings existing, no side effects on child widgets. For a removal operation, the description is under-specified.

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 both parameters (id and window) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify the exact format/type expectations of the widget identifier, whether window should be a name or handle, or relationships between the two parameters. 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 'Remove a widget from a window' uses a specific verb (Remove) plus resource (widget) and context (from a window). It's clear among siblings like imgui_add_widget and imgui_update_widget, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from related removal tools like imgui_remove_callback or imgui_remove_hit_region beyond mentioning 'widget'.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., whether the widget or window must exist), what happens if the widget doesn't exist, or how this differs from alternatives like imgui_hide_widget or imgui_set_widget_visibility. The 'from a window' phrase implies a constraint but offers no exclusion/alternative guidance.

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