wb_array

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the safe-by-default behavior (dry-run unless write=true) and the counting semantics. It says nothing about what gets created or modified, permission requirements, idempotency of repeated runs, or what the dry-run returns.

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 compact clauses with the core action first and the safety condition second; no filler. The critical default is stated before an agent would invoke the tool.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no per-parameter schema documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how the offset vector (x/y/z) behaves, what noderef_prefix does, or what a dry run returns, all of which are needed to call this correctly.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only two: 'count' (includes the source object) and 'write' (enables the actual mutation). It leaves x, y, z, keep_noderefs, and noderef_prefix completely unexplained, and the roles of file and path (which is required) are only guessable.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a linear array'), and the word 'linear' distinguishes it from siblings such as wb_radial_array, wb_path_array, and wb_grid. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but an agent can still infer the distinction from the wording.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this tool is for linear duplication patterns, and 'Dry-run unless write=true' conditions the mutation. There is no explicit statement about when to choose this over wb_radial_array, wb_grid, wb_path_array, or wb_duplicate, and no prerequisites are given.

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