Update an existing widget

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects (e.g., partial update behavior), or what happens to omitted fields. 'Trinary semantics' hints at nullable handling but lacks detail. Significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, 38 words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy. Could be considered slightly under-specified but not verbose.

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 tool with 7 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description omits return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., dashboard_id must reference an existing dashboard), and permissions. Incomplete given complexity.

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%. The description lists parameter groups (name, description, position, query, viz) but adds no details or constraints beyond the schema. For complex nested parameters like query and viz, no contextual meaning is provided. Minimal added value.

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 'Update name / description / position / query / viz of a single widget' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from bulk updates by referencing the dashboard layout endpoint, which also differentiates from a sibling tool.

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?

Explicitly advises to use the dashboard layout endpoint for bulk position changes, indicating when not to use this tool. 'Trinary semantics for nullable fields' gives guidance on field handling but could be clearer. Overall, good context for usage.

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