imgui_update_widget

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. The description says 'Update' implying mutation, but doesn't disclose whether updates are reversible/undoable (there's an imgui_undo sibling), what happens if a property is incompatible with the widget type, whether partial updates are allowed, or whether widget_type replacement causes side effects. It also doesn't mention the selection/all-widget update semantics beyond 'existing widget'.

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 front-loads the purpose and lists key updateable properties. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it omits behavior complexity that a null-annotation tool warrants.

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 complex tool with 24 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain how widget_type replacement works, which properties are valid for which widget types, whether the tool is undoable, or any error/edge-case behavior. For a high-parameter-count mutation tool lacking annotations, this is notably 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 the schema already documents all 24 parameters with specific property descriptions. The description adds a useful summary enumeration of what can be updated (value, text, checked state, label, content, color, items, selected index, enabled state, plot data) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('Update an existing widget's properties') and even enumerates which specific properties can be updated, distinguishing this from imgui_add_widget and imgui_remove_widget siblings. However, it doesn't strongly contrast with the closely-related imgui_set_widget_size, imgui_set_widget_visibility, or imgui_set_widget_anchor siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 makes clear that this is the update tool (vs add/remove). However, it provides no guidance on when to use this versus set_widget_size, set_widget_visibility, set_widget_anchor, or other more targeted sibling update tools, nor when NOT to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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