wb_distribute

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait — dry-run by default unless write=true — which is genuine value. It does not say what write=true actually mutates, whether the operation is undoable, what happens to grouped objects, or what the call returns.

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, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the safety note. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the operation and the write safety gate, which are the essentials. It is still thin on what distribution geometry means (bounding boxes vs pivots), the unexplained `file` parameter, and what a write call changes.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains axis (x/y/z) and write (dry-run toggle) and implies paths via "3+ objects/groups", but the required `file` parameter is never mentioned, so one of four parameters remains unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Evenly distribute 3+ independent objects/groups") plus the axis constraint, which is enough to tell it apart from wb_rotate, wb_scale, and array-family tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling it should not be confused with (wb_align, wb_grid, wb_scatter).

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 "3+ independent objects/groups" precondition is useful usage guidance, and the dry-run default implies the safe first call. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose distribute over align, grid, scatter, or array when spacing objects.

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