wetrack_create_widget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation and target dashboard, but does not mention permissions, persistence, idempotency, or any side effects beyond adding the widget. This is a meaningful gap for a write 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose sentence and then organized as a readable Args list. The long enumeration lists are necessary because the schema lacks them, so every line contributes information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 five-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers parameter semantics, requiredness, and cross-tool sourcing. It omits behavioral caveats such as auth requirements and exact return behavior, though an output schema exists, so the main gap is the missing behavioral context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args block fully documents each parameter: title's non-empty rule, metric's allowed enumeration, dimension's allowed enumeration, chart_type's allowed enumeration, and the source/usage for catalog_report_id. This is exemplary compensation for a schema with no descriptions.

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 opening sentence 'Add a report widget to the current user's dashboard' uses a specific verb and resource, and clarifies scope. It distinguishes this tool from sibling widget-management tools by signaling creation rather than update, deletion, listing, or data retrieval.

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 explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is implied from the creation semantics and the optional catalog_report_id cross-reference, which hints at pairing with wetrack_get_reports_catalog, but there is no direct comparison to wetrack_update_widget or wetrack_list_widgets.

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