add_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., auto-compilation), error conditions, or requirements (e.g., blueprint must be open). The examples for widget_class provide some context but are insufficient for full transparency.

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 starts with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., using a table). Each sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It explains most parameters but misses 'widget_blueprint_path' and does not address error scenarios. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but overall some gaps remain.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains most parameters with examples and meaning (e.g., 'parent_widget_name: Name of the parent panel', 'index: Insert position among siblings'). However, 'widget_blueprint_path' is not explained, and some parameter format details are missing, leaving a gap.

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 tool's action: 'Add a new widget to a Widget Blueprint's Designer tree.' It specifies the resource (Widget Blueprint) and the context (Designer tree), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_widget or move_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits among the many sibling widget manipulation tools.

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