wave_update_widget

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the confirmation gate and approved=true execution flow, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the update is destructive, whether fields are partially updated, what permissions are required, or what the confirmation contains.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the confirmation requirement. No wasted wording.

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?

The schema is fully documented, and the approval flow is mentioned. However, for a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain partial-update behavior, side effects, permissions, or 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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description only reinforces the approved parameter flow and adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing Wave Terminal widget.' This clearly distinguishes updating an existing widget from creating or deleting one, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 provides clear usage context for the two-step confirmation flow: the first call returns a confirmation, and approved=true executes the write. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus wave_create_widget or wave_delete_widget, but 'existing' implies the situation.

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