create_site_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action ('create') without any information about side effects, permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after creation (e.g., whether the widget becomes active immediately). For a creation tool with 8 parameters, this lack of behavioral context 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?

The description is extremely concise—a single phrase in Russian—which could be seen as efficient. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it fails to provide necessary context for a tool with 8 parameters. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 3 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no usage guidelines. For a creation tool in a system with many similar tools, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—not even the three required ones (widget_name, widget_title, webasyst_path). This leaves all parameters completely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their purposes and formats.

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 'Создать виджет для Site' (Create widget for Site) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_site_widget' in Russian. While it indicates the verb ('create') and resource ('widget for Site'), it lacks specificity about what kind of widget or what 'Site' refers to. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_widget' or 'create_site_block'.

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 multiple sibling tools with similar names (e.g., 'create_widget', 'create_site_block', 'create_site_plugin'), but the description offers no context about differences, prerequisites, or appropriate scenarios for this specific tool. This leaves the agent guessing about tool selection.

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