update_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. It only says 'Update' without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or what happens if the widget ID is invalid. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

Despite rich schema coverage for parameters, the description lacks essential behavioral context for an update operation—most importantly whether it performs a partial or full replacement. With no annotations and no output schema, the overall tool behavior remains underspecified.

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 provides full descriptions for all parameters, including nested options. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not explain the semantics of partial updates or which fields are optional.

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 'Update an existing widget in a dashboard' uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('widget'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_widget and delete_widget. The word 'existing' also clarifies the target state.

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 implies the widget must already exist, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_widget or delete_widget. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, leaving the usage context only implied.

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