mcp_update_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or whether the update is persisted immediately. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently concise but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., specifying the return value or expected format for settings).

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 many sibling widget tools and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated widget object or success status), nor does it provide context about the 'settings' structure. An agent may struggle to use this tool correctly without additional schema or examples.

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 100% with both parameters described ('Widget ID' and 'Settings to update'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 it updates a widget's settings, which is a specific action on a widget. Among siblings, there are separate tools for adding, deleting, moving, and reordering widgets, so this tool's purpose is distinct. However, it doesn't specify what type of widget (e.g., WordPress sidebar widget), leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many widget-related tools (add, get, delete, move, reorder) and no context on prerequisites (e.g., widget must exist) or when not to use this tool.

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