update_portal_widget

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

The description adds the behavioral context that WRITE_ENABLED must be true, which is a useful permission prerequisite not covered by the annotations. It also clarifies that the operation updates source code fields. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., widget behavior changes, validation, or response behavior), and the annotations already indicate it is a write, non-destructive operation. This is adequate but not detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema, and the operation involves multiple potential code fields. The description covers the basic purpose and the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, but it does not explain the expected return value, whether the update replaces or merges fields, or any validation behavior. Given the simplicity of the schema (sys_id and a fields object), the description is passable but leaves some operational context undefined.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with both sys_id and fields described. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the list of possible field keys. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Service Portal widget's source code'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like create_portal_widget or get_portal_widget. The scope is precise, stating that it modifies source code rather than just any widget property.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need to update an existing Service Portal widget's source code, as indicated by the word 'existing.' It also mentions the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true,' which gives a concrete condition for use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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