mcp_update_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether unspecified settings are preserved or wiped, whether settings are merged or replaced, required capabilities, or whether the update is reversible. For a mutation tool with an opaque nested settings object, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 a mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a nested arbitrary-key settings object, the description should disclose merge semantics, permissions, and failure modes but does none of them. The structured fields alone are not enough to call this correctly.

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 100%, so 'site', 'widget_id', and 'settings' are each documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable here but leaves the opaque 'settings' object (additionalProperties: {}) unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a widget's settings'), so an agent can tell it apart from mcp_get_widget or mcp_delete_widget by action alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling mutators like mcp_reorder_widgets or mcp_move_widget, which also change widgets.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus mcp_add_widget, mcp_move_widget, or mcp_reorder_widgets, nor any prerequisite (e.g. widget must already exist in a sidebar). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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