update_widget

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

The description discloses that it returns a PATCH payload (not directly updating the widget), which is a key behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover authentication needs, error handling, or other side effects.

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: three sentences with no redundant information. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 low parameter count (2), high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and return value. It mentions the endpoint, updatable sections, and that the result is a PATCH payload.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by listing the updatable sections (template, css, client_script, etc.) and explicitly stating that only desired sections should be included. This adds meaning beyond the schema property descriptions.

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 verb 'update', the resource 'widget', and specifies the action: 'Build a PATCH payload to update specific sections'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_widget or clone_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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Provide the widget sys_id and only the sections you want to change.' It implies when to use (partial updates) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives.

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