wave_create_block

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirmation/approval gate and the helper-block dependency, but says nothing about what happens when the helper is absent, whether the block persists, or what errors look like for a mutating operation.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the execution protocol and the prerequisite. Nothing is repeated and no sentence is wasted.

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 nine-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the approval flow and dependency but leaves the result of the confirmation call and post-creation state unstated. Adequate to invoke, thin for understanding consequences.

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 nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including view types, cwd, url, file, and approved. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 ('Create a new block in Wave Terminal'), which distinguishes it from wave_list_blocks, wave_delete_block, and wave_run_in_block. It does not differentiate itself from wave_create_widget, which is a nearby sibling that also creates things, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Explains the two-step confirmation protocol ('First call returns a confirmation; pass approved=true to execute') and states the prerequisite ('Requires the Seashell Helper block'), which is genuinely decision-relevant context. It gives no when-not guidance or routing against alternatives such as open_terminal_tab or wave_create_widget.

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