wb_assets_build

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Build/rebuild' implies a mutating operation that writes a database file, but the description never says whether an existing catalog is overwritten, where the file is written, how long an indexing pass takes, or what happens on a partial/aborted build.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key resource named early. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 an unannotated, no-output-schema, 0%-coverage mutation tool, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the build produces, where it lands, whether it is destructive to an existing catalog, or how to verify success.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only hints that world_builder_root is a source tree; it says nothing about whether `database` is a filesystem path, a filename, or defaults to some location, nor what format world_builder_root must take.

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 specific verb+resource: build/rebuild an SQLite/FTS asset catalog, and names the input source (a World Builder installation/source tree). This distinguishes it from catalog-reading siblings such as wb_assets_search and wb_assets_info. It does not, however, differentiate itself from potentially similar build siblings like wb_semantic_build.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool should be run before wb_assets_search/wb_assets_info work, and nothing says whether to pick this over wb_semantic_build or the various wb_build_* tools.

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