update_code_widget

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails: it does not say whether this is a partial (patch) update or a full replace, whether unspecified fields are cleared, what gets destroyed, or what permissions are needed. "EXPERIMENTAL" is the only behavioral signal and even that is unexplained.

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?

It is only two sentences and front-loads the action, so there is no padding to trim. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — every useful detail is absent rather than condensed.

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?

A 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation needs far more than this. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the input-side and behavioral gaps are severe for a tool of this complexity.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description adds nothing about code, language, x/y positioning, parent_frame_id, or line_numbers_visible. The critical ambiguity of whether omitted optional fields mean "leave unchanged" or "set to null" is unaddressed anywhere.

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?

"Update a code widget" restates the tool name verbatim, adding no scope, target, or field information. "EXPERIMENTAL" signals instability but does not clarify what the tool does beyond the name. An agent cannot tell what aspect of the widget is modified or how it differs from update_shape/update_card beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of create_code_widget, list_code_widgets, or the other update_* siblings. No prerequisites, no mention of required permissions, and no indication of what happens when optional fields are omitted. "EXPERIMENTAL" is a caution flag, not usage guidance.

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