imgui_set_widget_anchor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the anchor affects subsequent layout behavior, whether it recalculates on window resize, whether it's persistent across draws, or any side effects. For a layout operation that could significantly affect widget rendering, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that conveys the purpose efficiently. No filler or redundant content. It's appropriately brief given the schema already covers parameter details.

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?

With 5 parameters (3 required), 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and the presence of many sibling layout tools (imgui_move_widget, imgui_set_anchor, imgui_set_widget_size), the description could do more to clarify how anchor positioning interacts with the layout system. The statement 'for responsive layout within its window' is helpful but doesn't clarify edge cases like what 'none' does or how this differs from imgui_set_anchor. Given the moderate complexity, a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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 documents all 5 parameters. The description adds the conceptual context that the anchor is for 'responsive layout', which helps understand the offset params as pixel adjustments from the anchor point. However, this could be enhanced by explaining that anchor positions are relative to the window (which is implied by the parameter structure) or explaining the layout algorithm.

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 verb ('Set'), resource ('a widget's anchor position'), and purpose ('for responsive layout within its window'). It's specific and differentiates from the sibling tool imgui_set_anchor by focusing on per-widget anchor within a window, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling or contrast with it.

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 implies it's for responsive layout positioning but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like imgui_move_widget or imgui_set_anchor. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The 'for responsive layout' phrase gives some context but doesn't name alternatives or clarify boundary conditions.

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