Change the chat widget settings

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, destructive), the description discloses important behavioral traits: changes are live for every visitor at once, settings not included in the plan are refused with the required plan, and nothing is written unless every value is valid. These are significant side-effect and failure-mode details.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that each add distinct information: the action, the read-before pattern, and the transactional/plan behavior. No fluff or redundant wording.

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 description covers the core action, preconditions, plan limitations, atomicity, and live propagation. It does not mention output or return values, but no output schema exists, and the description does not need to explain that. Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested object, plan checks), this is nearly complete.

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 already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage (settings object with example, website_id with example). The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, such as 'object of setting name to new value' which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 changes one or more chat widget settings, using the specific verb 'Change' and resource 'chat widget settings'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_widget_settings (read) and set_widget_pinning (specific setting) by focusing on general updates.

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 advises to 'read them with get_widget_settings first', providing a clear precondition. It also explains plan restrictions and atomic validation, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond the read hint, so a small gap remains.

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