smartsuite_update_dashboard_widget

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the merge-vs-wholesale-replace semantics of params, the API's 'Field required' rejection, the auth requirements, and a non-obvious side effect (updating params may reset widget height, so pass size in the same call).

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?

Content is valuable but structurally weak: it opens with a caveat about params merging rather than the tool's purpose, and the merge/replace distinction is repeated at both the start and in the NOTE. The result reads as rambling rather than front-loaded, though no sentence is purely wasted.

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?

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a single weak annotation, the description covers prerequisites, the read-then-write workflow, and the height-reset side effect well. It is close to complete, missing only guidance on error/recovery behavior beyond the quoted 'Field required' message.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that position coordinates are columns/pixels (x/width columns, y/height pixels), that tabId relocates the widget to another tab, and that params replaces wholesale rather than patching. These details are not in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Update a dashboard widget's settings and/or layout.' An agent can readily distinguish this from siblings like smartsuite_add_dashboard_widget, smartsuite_remove_dashboard_widget, and smartsuite_update_dashboard. The enumerated fields (position, size, name, color, tabId, params) reinforce the exact scope.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites (readwrite/admin mode AND SMARTSUITE_ENABLE_SCHEMA_WRITE=true) and an explicit read-first workflow ('read the widget first via smartsuite_describe_dashboard(includeWidgets:true)'). However it never names when to prefer an alternative sibling tool or when not to use this one.

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