Update Widget

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds crucial context about the PUT method and full-replacement semantics, warning that omitted fields may be lost. This goes beyond the basic annotations, though it does not detail auth requirements or error responses.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource path. Each sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains the critical full-replacement behavior and usage hint. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested template object) and lack of output schema, the description provides the essential semantic of full-replacement. However, it does not mention what the response contains or any special considerations for nested fields. Still, with strong annotations and schema, this is adequate.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 operation as 'PUT /api/widgets/{id} — Update an existing widget by ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or delete by focusing on updating an existing 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 provides clear context by noting this is a 'full-replacement operation' and instructs to 'Include all fields you want to retain.' This implies it should be used when replacing the entire widget, and cautions against partial updates. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for partial updates, though none exist among siblings.

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