imgui_set_widget_size

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 this is a persistent change, whether it triggers layout recalculation, whether it affects anchored children, whether the widget needs to exist (vs auto-create), or what happens if the size is invalid. 'Set the size' gives no behavioral depth.

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 an efficient single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and minimal. However, it's so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than intentional conciseness.

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 mutation tool (setting widget size) with no annotations, no output schema, and a very sparse description. Given the complexity of a widget-sizing operation in an imgui framework (layout implications, coordinate systems, behavioral effects), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions (widget not found, invalid size), or relationship to layout.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, width, height, window) having a short description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with >80% coverage the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional parameter context like bounds, units (pixels vs logical), or interaction between width/height.

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 the action (set the size) and resource (a widget) clearly, differentiating it from imgui_set_window_visibility, imgui_set_widget_visibility, imgui_set_style, etc. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like imgui_move_widget or imgui_set_widget_anchor, and is quite generic without specifying what 'size' translates to visually or coordinate-wise.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that widget size changes may affect layout, whether the widget must exist first, whether the window must be visible, or any usage constraints. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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