reparent_widgets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that position is preserved verbatim and hints at the need for post-adjustment. However, it omits error handling (e.g., invalid widget IDs) and reversibility, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, parameter format, and usage constraint. No repetition or unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: action, data format, parent constraint, and post-action step. It could mention validation or failure cases, but it remains fairly complete for a straightforward tool.

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 has 0% coverage for the 'updates' parameter, but the description adds full meaning by specifying the exact structure: each entry is {widget_id, new_parent_id}. This compensates entirely for the schema deficiency.

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 verb 'reparent' and resource 'widgets', and indicates it operates on multiple widgets in a single call. It distinguishes from siblings like add_widgets and update_widgets by specifying the action of changing parentage.

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?

It provides explicit constraints: new_parent_id must accept children (CANVAS_WIDGET) and advises calling set_widget_bounds after if snap dimensions differ. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the guidance is clear and helpful for standard use.

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