manage_widget_dependency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions CRUD and link/unlink, implying mutation, but gives no details on side effects (e.g., what changes are persisted, whether dependencies are overwritten or appended, permission requirements). The 'save_to_disk' parameter hints at file writes but is not explained. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 plus a parenthetical hint—extremely concise with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose (CRUD + link/unlink) and immediately provides actionable guidance ('Use action=list first'). Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 6 action types, 3 target types), the description is too brief to equip an agent with full understanding. It omits relationships between parameters (e.g., when to use widget_id vs widget_ids), the effect of each action on data, and output behavior. The lack of an output schema exacerbates this. Agents would likely struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 71% (10 of 14 parameters have descriptions). The description adds a usage hint for 'action' and 'confirm' but does not significantly elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it doesn't explain how 'depth' affects chain reading or how 'scope' filters. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 the tool performs CRUD and link/unlink operations for widget providers and dependencies. The verb 'manage' is broad but the description specifies the exact resource scope (Angular providers & CSS/JS dependencies). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the unique combination of CRUD and link/unlink for a specific resource makes the purpose clear.

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 advises 'Use action=list first for sys_ids' and mentions the required confirm parameter value. This provides a basic workflow hint but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites or conditions for each action type. The hint is useful but incomplete for guiding the agent's decision.

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