wb_bounds_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether setting bounds overwrites existing bounds, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the operation returns. 'Attach' implies a mutation, but mutation semantics and side effects are left unstated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and intended use efficiently.

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 seven-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of several required and optional parameters and does not explain what changes, persists, or is returned.

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 explain all seven parameters. It only implicitly covers id and x/y/z via 'one indexed asset' and 'local XYZ bounds'; it does not explain database, source, confidence, or the coordinate frame in enough detail for safe invocation.

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-resource pair: attach explicit local XYZ bounds to one indexed asset. It also gives the scope (one indexed asset) and high-level purpose (collision-aware planning), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wb_bounds_import or wb_bounds_info.

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 phrase 'for collision-aware planning' implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as wb_bounds_import or wb_bounds_info. The agent must infer when this tool is preferable.

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