Update App Widget

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true, but no idempotence or destructive flags. The description states it updates config and/or position, indicating a non-destructive mutation. However, it doesn't disclose the dryRun parameter behavior, what happens when only some fields are provided (partial vs full replacement), or whether position conflicts with move_block/reorder_blocks tools. With modest annotation coverage, the description adds some value but misses key behavioral context around the dryRun flag and partial vs full update semantics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and subject, tight and economical. No redundant phrases or filler. The description efficiently conveys the core purpose without waste.

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 tool is moderately complex (6 params, nested position object, dryRun mode, open-world config) with no output schema. The 13-word description provides only the core purpose. It fails to explain the dryRun parameter (critical for a mutation tool), the position semantics relative to before/after/index, how the arbitrary config object is applied, or the distinction from place_widget/move_block/reorder_blocks siblings. For a tool of this complexity with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimal rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 6 params, but it only mentions 'config' and 'position' by name. The description doesn't clarify that config takes arbitrary key-value pairs (open schema), how position's after/index/before properties interact, or what dryRun does. The position object with mutually-exclusive-looking fields (after/before/index) is undocumented. Given 0% coverage and 3 undocumented optional params, the description falls short of compensating.

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 tool name 'kilango_update_widget' and title 'Update App Widget' clearly signal verb+resource. The description adds specific scope ('app-widget block's config and/or position'), distinguishing it from siblings like place_widget, delete_widget, and move_block for pages/blocks. It's clear what resource is being acted upon, though it doesn't name the exact fields beyond 'config and/or position'.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like kilango_place_widget (placement), kilango_move_block (position), kilango_update_content_block (content blocks), and kilango_reorder_blocks (ordering), there's ambiguity about when to use this vs those. However, the config vs position distinction partially implies usage scope.

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