Install widget

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

The description only says 'Install a widget into the account by code' with no details on side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or response behavior. The openWorldHint annotation indicates external effects, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic mutation. Without any safety-related annotations like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, this is a significant omission.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It's not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. This is a middle ground: appropriately sized in word count but lacking substance.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and only openWorldHint annotation. The description fails to mention return values, the effect of settings, or any post-install behavior. Given this moderate complexity, the description is too sparse to be complete.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It only hints at 'code' (which maps to widget_code) but doesn't clarify its format or meaning. The 'settings' object parameter is completely unexplained. This falls short of compensating for the undocumented 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 clearly states the action ('Install') and resource ('a widget'), and specifies 'by code' which hints at the widget code parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_widgets_list, kommo_widgets_get, and kommo_widgets_uninstall. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it's not a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when installation is appropriate, or what to use instead (e.g., kommo_widgets_list for listing, kommo_widgets_uninstall for removal). This is a clear gap for a tool with many siblings.

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