add_widget

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

The description notes 'requires write permission', which aligns with readOnlyHint=false, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as side effects, return values, or error behavior. The annotations are all false or open-world, so the description carries the burden, yet it focuses on config requirements rather than operational behavior. No contradiction exists.

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 long, dense paragraph without formatting. While each sentence carries essential type-specific information, the structure makes it hard to scan. It is not concise, but given the complexity of config options, the length is justified. A bulleted or sectioned format would improve readability without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., created widget ID or object). It also omits error scenarios, rollback behavior, or limitations. The extensive config details ensure a correct request, but an agent cannot predict the response format, which is a notable gap for successful follow-up actions.

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 substantial value by detailing required config fields for text, bigNumber, cgraph, and deviceSLA widget types. It clarifies expected structures (e.g., GlobMatchToggle objects, 'bigNumberItems' array) and value constraints (e.g., 'displayType' 0/1). This far exceeds the generic 'Widget configuration (type-specific)' in the schema and is crucial for correct invocation.

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: 'Add a widget to a dashboard', with a permission note. This verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_widget, delete_widget, and get_widget, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_widget for existing widgets). It provides extensive configuration guidance for different widget types, but that is how-to-use parameter advice, not tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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