wave_manage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the action enum from the schema. It does not mention side effects, required context_id semantics, permission implications, or what happens when attach/reload/detach are performed.

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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence that efficiently enumerates the tool's operations. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a multi-action tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, yet the description offers no parameter guidance, usage context, or behavioral details. The output schema exists but the description still leaves significant gaps for correct invocation (e.g., which parameters are needed for attach versus list).

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists actions already present in the schema enum. It gives no meaning for path, wave_id, or context_id, leaving the agent without clues about required or optional parameter combinations for each action.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: managing waveform resources via attach, reload, detach, list, or status actions. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like wave_value or wave_changes, which focus on reading values or changes rather than lifecycle management.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the action list implies usage, there is no explicit context about selecting wave_manage over wave_value or wave_compute for particular tasks.

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