wave_bootstrap_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: a dry-run confirmation gate, a hard dependency on the Seashell Helper, and that the operation is a multi-block mutation. It does not say whether existing blocks in the tab are replaced, preserved, or appended, which is the main remaining behavioral unknown 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by template options, the confirmation protocol, and the prerequisite. 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?

Covers the prerequisite, the confirmation workflow, and the meaningful template choices, which is most of what an agent needs. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one notable omission is the effect on pre-existing tab content and what the confirmation response looks like.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the template list rather than adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Bootstrap a Wave tab with a project-specific block layout') and enumerates the available templates, which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not name the nearby alternatives (wave_create_block, run_template, list_templates) that an agent might confuse it with, so the differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives clear procedural guidance for the two-phase invocation: the first call returns a confirmation and only approved=true executes, which prevents accidental side effects. It also names the Seashell Helper prerequisite. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over wave_create_block or run_template.

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