run_editor_utility_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Run' without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or whether execution may modify the project. This is especially risky for a tool that executes arbitrary widget code.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No extraneous words or repetition; highly efficient given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides the core action and parameter. However, it lacks any warning about potential side effects or execution context, which would be expected for a run-type tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

The schema already describes 'widget_path' as 'Editor Utility Widget asset path' with 100% coverage. The description's 'by asset path' wording reinforces but adds no further semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Run'), the specific resource type ('Editor Utility Widget'), and the method ('by asset path'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'run_editor_utility_blueprint', which targets a different resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The closely related sibling 'run_editor_utility_blueprint' is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the name alone.

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