wb_build_worker_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral fact — the default is a non-mutating preview — but it says nothing about what gets overwritten when run=true, whether the operation is reversible, what the worker being 'verified' entails, or how failures surface.

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 tight sentences with the mode distinction and the safe default front-loaded, and no filler. Minor redundancy: 'worker' is already in the tool name, and the slashed 'workspace/source/archive' list is compact but slightly ambiguous.

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?

A five-parameter mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage needs substantially more than one sentence. An agent cannot confidently supply workspace/worker/timeout values or predict side effects from this definition alone.

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 all five parameters must be explained in prose. Only 'run' gets semantics (boolean, defaults to false); workspace (the sole required parameter), worker, timeout, and keep_json are entirely unexplained, including whether workspace is a path and what format it takes.

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?

It names a resource (a prepared workspace/source/archive) and a mechanism (the .NET WolvenKit worker), and the preview/apply dual mode is visible from 'Preview or populate'. However, 'populate' is vague about the actual effect, and nothing distinguishes it from near-identical siblings such as wb_worker_import, wb_build_native_import, or wb_native_import.

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?

'run=false by default' implies a preview-first workflow, which is real usage guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the several other import tools in the sibling list, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a workspace must first be prepared via wb_build_prepare).

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