wave_create_fish_widget

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

With no annotations at all, the description bears the full behavioral burden. It earns credit for disclosing the dry-run/confirm pattern (first call has no side effect), but says nothing about what happens if a widget with the same id already exists, whether Wave must be running, or whether the widget persists across restarts.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the identification of the tool comes first followed by the operational instruction. Nothing here could be cut without losing 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the confirmation protocol but leaves duplicate-id behavior, error modes, and any environment prerequisites unstated. Adequate to invoke correctly, thin on what the agent should expect.

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% and every parameter has a documented default in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description's only parameter-related content is the approved=true instruction, which restates the schema's own "Set to true to confirm".

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?

"Add a Fish shell widget to the Wave widget bar" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical explicitly ties it to wave_create_widget as a specialized convenience wrapper, which separates it from the generic sibling. It stops just short of 5 because it doesn't say what this wrapper does differently from calling wave_create_widget with fish-specific arguments.

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 two-step flow is spelled out: the first call returns a confirmation and approved=true executes, so an agent knows exactly how to drive it. It doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over wave_create_widget or list_templates, but the wrapper framing makes the choice largely implicit.

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