wb_build_package

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. It usefully discloses the safe default (write=false), but says nothing about what write=true actually does, whether it overwrites an existing output folder/ZIP, what permissions or build state are required, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 core action front-loaded and the safety default placed immediately after. No filler, though the brevity is close to under-specification rather than efficient economy.

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?

With five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for a packaging/mutation-capable tool. An agent still lacks the input formats, the effect of write=true, and the distinction from several sibling build/package tools.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches 'zip' and 'write' (the latter via the default note) and leaves 'workspace', 'archive', and 'output' entirely unexplained, including whether output is a path, a directory, or a target ZIP name.

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 gives a concrete verb pair ('Preview or assemble') and a concrete resource ('game-layout distribution folder/ZIP from a built archive'), so an agent can tell it produces a distribution artifact rather than a build. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as wb_build_pack, wb_build_prepare, or wb_worker_bundle, so the agent cannot tell which packaging tool to pick.

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?

'Preview or assemble' combined with 'write=false by default' implies a dry-run-first workflow, which is implicit usage guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over wb_build_pack or wb_worker_bundle, and no stated prerequisites such as requiring a prior build step.

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