wave_delete_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavior: this is a destructive, two-phase operation requiring explicit approval. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens for an unknown id.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the confirmation requirement front and center before the agent acts.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essential information (what it deletes, the approval handshake) is present. Minor gaps remain around the confirmation response shape and error handling for invalid ids.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the approved workflow but adds no syntax or identifier-format detail beyond it.

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+resource ('Remove a custom widget from Wave Terminal'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutators like wave_create_widget and wave_update_widget. Scope of the resource (custom widget) is explicit.

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 concrete operational guidance: the first call returns a confirmation and a second call with approved=true executes. It does not, however, contrast with wave_delete_block or explain when deletion is appropriate versus updating the widget.

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