guild_modify_widget

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the return format '{enabled, channel_id}' and clarifies the exact mutation (toggle/change channel). However, it doesn't mention the nullable behavior of channel_id for removal, but this is partially covered by the schema.

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 and well-structured with bolded sections. Every sentence adds meaningful information: purpose, when to use, and return value. 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 (4 params, output schema, annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and returns. Missing minor edge cases (e.g., null channel_id), but overall sufficient for invocation.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the meaning of 'enabled' (toggle) and 'channel_id' (set invite channel). The other parameters (guild_id, audit_reason) have adequate descriptions in the schema.

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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('widget settings'), and specifies the actions ('toggle enabled, set invite channel'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like guild_get_widget_settings, which is a read operation.

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?

Provides concrete scenarios for use ('Toggle the public widget on/off, change which channel an embed-invite points at'). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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