wave_run_in_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important trait: a confirmation gate before execution, plus a hard dependency on the Seashell Helper block. It omits whether the command runs with destructive potential, what the confirmation response contains, what happens to the block on failure or timeout, and whether close_on_exit default effects matter beyond the schema note.

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, front-loaded with the action, followed by the invocation contract and the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 six-parameter command-execution tool with a nested env object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the flow and dependency but leaves the agent guessing about safety profile and what the confirmation response actually returns. Adequate but with clear gaps for a potentially destructive operation.

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 six parameters including the nested env object are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the approved flag semantics, adding no format or interaction detail (e.g., how cwd interacts with tab_id) beyond structured data.

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: run a command in a new Wave Terminal block. The 'new block' scope hints at how it differs from session-based execution, but the description never names a sibling such as execute_command or wave_create_block, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

It documents the two-step invocation contract (first call confirms, second call with approved=true executes) and a prerequisite (Seashell Helper block), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to pick this over execute_command, execute_with_streaming, or ssh_execute, which occupy overlapping territory.

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