wb_favorite_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The preview-by-default / write=true gate is genuinely useful disclosure, but for a mutation tool it omits permissions needed, what happens if the favorite already exists, whether the preview returns a diff, and whether anything is destroyed.

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 action front-loaded and the safety gate immediately after, so no wording is wasted. It is perhaps too terse given nine parameters, but nothing is redundant.

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 9-parameter write-capable tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description explains only one parameter and one behavior. An agent could not confidently supply category, path, world_builder_root, or tags from this text 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 coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'write' is explained (write=true commits); file, path, world_builder_root, category, category_icon, name, icon and tags are left entirely to bare untyped-looking schema entries.

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 ('Add an object/group to World Builder Favorites') and clarifies the resulting artifact ('as a reusable prefab'). It distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling wb_favorites_list by verb, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the object/group-to-favorites framing, and the 'Preview-only unless write=true' clause tells the agent the default is a dry run. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over wb_spawn_asset or wb_prefab_render, no prerequisites, and no note on duplicate handling.

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