wb_build_prepare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that write=false is the default and that write=true creates the workspace; it omits whether existing files are overwritten, permission requirements, side effects, and what preview returns. For a workspace-creating operation with nine parameters, that is thin.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and gives the key default without filler. Every sentence contributes.

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 nine parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. It leaves required parameter meaning, optional parameter behavior, and mutation side effects largely unexplained.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description explains only the write parameter's default, not the meanings of export_file, workspace, author, description, project_name, project_version, scaffold_tweak, or world_builder_root. It adds a little beyond the schema, but far too little for nine undocumented parameters.

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 ('Preview or create') and resource ('WolvenKit workspace around a WB export'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighboring build/export tools, which keeps it from 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?

It implies when to use it by contrasting preview vs create via write=false, but it does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tools to use instead. The default mode is helpful but not full usage guidance.

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