wb_build_deploy

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the operation is a no-op preview by default, and conflicting files block the write unless overwrite is set. It still omits whether deploys are reversible, what gets written and where under game_root, what happens to non-conflicting files, and whether permissions or a running game are required.

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 short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the safety-critical defaults immediately after; nothing is padded or repetitive. It could be slightly better structured with the parameter notes separated from the purpose statement, but it wastes no words.

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?

Docked for a missing piece: this is an unannotated, output-schema-less write tool, and while the dry-run default and overwrite gate are the most important safeguards an agent needs before calling it, the definition still leaves the artifact locations and the post-deploy result unstated.

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 is responsible for all parameter meaning. It explains apply (dry-run flag with default) and overwrite (conflict gate), but the two required parameters, layout and game_root, are never characterized beyond the vague phrase 'game-layout folder' — no path format, no examples, no indication whether game_root is the Cyberpunk install directory.

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 names a specific action pair (preview or deploy) and a specific resource (a game-layout folder into Cyberpunk), which is far more informative than the opaque name wb_build_deploy alone. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like wb_build_prepare, wb_build_package, or wb_plan_apply, so it falls short of a 5.

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 apply=false default and the overwrite-gating sentence imply the dry-run-then-commit workflow, which is useful implied guidance. However, the description never says when to choose this tool over wb_build_prepare, wb_build_package, wb_plan_apply, or wb_build_worker_import, and gives no prerequisites about the layout folder's expected structure.

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