wb_generate_cable

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and its disclosure that the call is a dry-run by default is genuinely useful safety context. It omits what happens on write (creation vs. replacement of existing objects), what the dry-run returns, and any permission or overwrite implications, leaving the mutation profile only half-described.

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 dry-run caveat placed prominently at the end, no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why the nine parameters go unexplained.

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, 6-required generation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin to call correctly. An agent knows it builds a cable chain along a path and defaults to dry-run, but not how to supply catalog, parent, file, or segment_asset, nor what the result looks like.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It indirectly evokes points/spacing/segment_asset through 'repeated ... along a path' and clarifies write, but file, parent, catalog, name, and yaw_offset receive no meaning at all, including format expectations for catalog and segment_asset identifiers.

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 names a specific verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('repeated cable/pipe segment chain along a path'), which separates it from generic array tools like wb_array or wb_path_array. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5, but the cable/pipe domain framing is distinctive.

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 states a default mode ('Dry-run unless write=true'), which is real usage guidance for the commit decision, but it never says when to prefer this over path/grid/scatter siblings or what preconditions (existing file, parent, catalog entry) must hold. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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