wb_asset_pool_spawn

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: determinism (seeded randomness) and a non-mutating dry-run default gated by write=true. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, what the dry-run returns (a preview count? placements?), whether spawning is reversible, or how it interacts with existing scene contents.

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 tight sentences with the key mode-switching constraint placed after the capability statement and zero filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves the second sentence doing a lot of work for a 16-parameter 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 16-parameter, 5-required-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, two sentences are far from sufficient. An agent would have to guess the meaning of the bounding-box, center, yaw, and noderef parameters, and would not know what a dry run yields before committing with write=true.

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 16 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only pool (weighted entries), seed (determinism), and write (dry-run gate); file, parent, catalog, count, half_x/y/z, center_x/y/z, random_yaw, generate_noderef, and noderef_prefix are entirely unexplained, and the shape of items inside the pool array is left ambiguous.

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 ("Spawn") and resource ("a deterministic weighted pool of exact indexed World Builder assets"), which is more precise than a bare "spawn asset". It does not explicitly contrast itself with near-siblings like wb_spawn_asset or wb_scatter, so the agent must infer the distinction from the adjectives "weighted" and "exact indexed".

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?

"Dry-run unless write=true" gives a usable default-mode instruction, which is genuinely helpful for choosing safe invocation. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over wb_spawn_asset, wb_scatter, or wb_assets_build, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. that the catalog/file must already exist).

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