Export a .widget file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses important behaviors: it can write a file to disk, defaults to '<widget-name>.widget' when path is 'auto', and omitting path skips writing (implied by 'also write'). It also notes the file is importable at widgets.chatkit.studio. This adds useful context, though it doesn't mention overwrite behavior or permissions, so it is strong but not perfect.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that immediately state the purpose, then provide key usage details. Every clause carries essential information: the format, the required input, the optional path behavior, and the default filename. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and a straightforward export function, the description covers the main workflow: pass generationId, optionally provide a path, and know the default filename. The return behavior (file contents) is only implied in the description but is explicitly stated in the schema's path description. Given the availability of that schema, the description is adequately complete, though it could explicitly state what the tool returns when no path is given.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (generationId and path), covering their meaning and special values. The description essentially restates this information without adding new parameter semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra clarity beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Export a generated widget as a .widget file'), which clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from siblings by referencing the Widget Studio editor's format and the import location, making it unique from generate_widget and display_widget.

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 clear usage context: it is meant to be used after generate_widget, since it instructs to 'Pass the generationId from a generate_widget result.' It also provides guidance on the optional path parameter, recommending it for local sessions and explaining the 'auto' behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with display_widget, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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