wb_generate_fence

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver the single most important fact: the tool is non-destructive by default and only mutates when write=true. It says nothing about what write=true creates or overwrites, whether output is baked into the level file, or what 'verified' validation entails.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the safety default. Nothing is wasted, but the extreme terseness is arguably under-specification rather than discipline for a 10-parameter generator.

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?

This is a 10-parameter, 6-required-parameter generation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. Two sentences cannot cover required inputs like spacing units, catalog/parent resolution, or the effect of yaw_offset, so an agent would have to guess on most of the call.

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 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It hints at points ('along a path'), post_asset ('optional posts'), segment_asset, and write, but leaves file, parent, catalog, spacing, name, and yaw_offset entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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: generate repeated fence segments plus optional posts along a path. An agent can tell it apart from wb_generate_road or wb_generate_cable by the fence/segment framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The word 'verified' is unexplained jargon that slightly muddies the purpose.

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 'Dry-run unless write=true' clause gives an actionable default and effectively tells the agent this tool is safe to call speculatively. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over path-array or scatter siblings, and no prerequisites (asset validity, catalog membership) are stated.

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