Create Widget

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which align with the 'Create' action. The description adds the context that the widget displays integration data in the sidebar, which is useful, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as auth requirements or side effects beyond creation.

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 sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and resource, followed by the purpose. It is concise with no redundant 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?

As a create operation with no output schema, the description does not mention the return value or any error conditions. It also does not explain how the template structure translates to the rendered widget, though the schema covers parameters. This leaves the agent without sufficient information about expected outcomes.

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% description coverage, with all 7 parameters documented. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Thus 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's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new widget'), and specifies the context ('ticket or customer sidebar'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_widget or update_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It simply says 'Create a new widget,' which implies the usage scenario but provides no guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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