set_widget_bounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses a key behavioral trait: when `rows` is given, auto-height widgets switch to FIXED (with `heightModeOverridden` reported). However, it does not cover error handling, permissions, or effects of invalid inputs.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then details the entry format and behavior efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description provides a good level of detail. It explains the data format and a specific side effect. Missing details like return value or validation of required fields, but it is largely sufficient for a focused 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 input schema is minimal (only an array of objects with no field definition), and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explicitly listing all fields (`widget_id`, `left`, `top`, `columns`, `rows`), explaining their roles, and noting that omitted fields are preserved. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Move and/or resize multiple widgets in one tool call.' It specifies the resource (widgets) and the operation (bounds modification), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rename_widgets or reparent_widgets.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to move/resize widgets) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives. It implies usage for batch bounds changes, but lacks exclusions.

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