Update a widget

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

No contradiction with annotations: readOnlyHint=false aligns with 'Change'/'move', and openWorldHint=true fits the open instance object. The description adds minor context by disclosing that relocation is possible, but it does not address side effects such as overwriting an existing instance (which is disclosed only inside the schema) or any return behavior. Basic mutation disclosure is present but not enriched.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action (change settings) before the secondary capability (move). Zero filler, every word earns its place.

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?

While the description is thin, the schema covers all parameters comprehensively, including the read-first warning that is the most important operational detail for this mutation. There is no output schema, and the description offers no return/error hints, but for a 5-param tool whose parameter semantics are fully documented, the package is adequate and little is missing.

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 all 5 parameters documented, including the critical 'read the widget first — replaces the instance wholesale' note on instance. The description adds little beyond mapping 'settings', 'sidebar', and 'position' to the corresponding parameters — modest value on top of an already thorough schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Change'/'move') with a clear resource ('a widget') and names three distinct capabilities: changing settings, relocating to a sidebar, or repositioning. This explicitly distinguishes it from sibling create_widget/delete_widget/list_widgets and any generic update tool.

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?

Usage context is implied by the noun/verb pairing and sibling names (this is the widget-update variant among create/delete/list), but the description never states when to choose it over alternatives or when not to. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so an agent infers applicability rather than being told.

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