update_widget

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful write-permission requirement, which is not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose whether the update is partial, whether unspecified fields are reset, or how the operation behaves if a widget is not found, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 that immediately states the action and the required permission. It contains no filler or redundancy. While it is terse, it earns its place by flagging the write-permission requirement without repeating schema details.

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 schema documents all 9 parameters and the annotations cover read/write and destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it is missing important update semantics, such as whether only provided fields are changed or the entire widget is replaced. For a mutation tool, that level of behavioral clarity would improve completeness. Overall, the description is minimally adequate but leaves key edge-case expectations unstated.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description such as "New name" or "New width in columns". The tool description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Update a widget") that clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like get_widget, add_widget, and delete_widget. It is not a tautology and does not mislead. It could have been more explicit about which attributes are updatable, but the schema already enumerates them.

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 provide any guidance on when to use update_widget versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the write-permission requirement. With many CRUD siblings available, an agent is left to infer when this tool should be chosen.

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