wb_elevator_wire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses that it dry-runs by default, requires write=true to mutate, and patches saved instance data when available. However, it does not explain permissions, reversibility, side effects of wiring, or what happens when instance data is unavailable, leaving notable behavioral gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action first and the dry-run behavior immediately after. Every clause adds information and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to be relatively complete. It covers the core intent and dry-run behavior but omits half the parameters and lacks important behavioral detail for a tool that can patch saved instance data.

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 must compensate. It mentions elevator, terminals, markers, and write semantics, but leaves file, floor_names, noderef_prefix, and terminal_class_name completely unexplained, and it gives no format or constraint details for the documented 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 and resource: wiring an existing elevator, including terminals and floor markers. It is clear what the tool does and is not a tautology. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, though no sibling clearly covers elevator wiring.

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 phrase 'existing elevator' implies this is for retrofitting or connecting an already-created elevator rather than generating one. The dry-run default and write=true gate give some operational guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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