wetrack_update_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the partial-update rule, the allowed chart_type values, and the meaning of is_visible. However, it does not state whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, nor any side effects or permission requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a key constraint, and an Args block with a single sentence per parameter. No filler or repeated schema information.

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?

All six parameters are covered, the widget_id source is specified, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit behavior for omitted fields in a partial update, which matters for a tool like this.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly by explaining every parameter: widget_id provenance, title's non-empty constraint, metric/dimension pointer to wetrack_create_widget, chart_type enum values, and is_visible semantics. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with 'Update a report widget,' a specific verb and resource, and immediately adds the partial-update constraint ('At least one field must be provided'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create, delete, reorder, or fetch widget operations.

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?

Provides clear operational context: requires a widget_id from wetrack_list_widgets and states that at least one mutable field must be supplied. It does not explicitly contrast with wetrack_create_widget or wetrack_delete_widget for when to use one versus the other, but the update workflow is unambiguous and the prerequisite is helpful.

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