remove_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: removal also stops the widget's live refresh. It does not state reversibility, whether the call errors on an unknown id, or whether it takes effect immediately, so a meaningful gap remains for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action is stated first and the secondary behavioral note is parenthesized. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and one side effect, which is close to sufficient. Missing details about error behavior and reversibility are minor given the low complexity.

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 0% – the lone parameter is documented only as type string with no description. The tool text adds nothing about what the id refers to or its format, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage as required. Only the parameter's self-evident name keeps this from scoring lower.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Remove a widget") makes the action unambiguous. It also adds a side-effect clause about stopping live refresh, which the sibling names (place_widget, update_widget) do not. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with update_widget or clear_canvas, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 is implied by the name and the parenthetical note about live refresh, so an agent can reasonably infer when to call it. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like update_widget (modify) or clear_canvas (remove all).

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