wb_generate_noderef

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — the tool is a dry run unless write=true — which is genuinely useful safety context. It stops short of saying what write actually writes, whether existing files are overwritten, what force does, or what the generated NodeRef looks like.

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 zero padding, and the dry-run default is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification given five undocumented parameters, so it reads as terse rather than tight.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, two sentences are not sufficient. An agent can guess the general purpose but cannot know what a NodeRef is used for downstream, what prefix does, or what happens to an existing file at path.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only write is given meaning (it flips the dry run into a real write); file, path, force, and prefix are left entirely unexplained, including whether path is a destination directory or a node path.

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?

"Generate a World Builder-compatible NodeRef" gives a specific verb and a named artifact, so the action is identifiable. However, "NodeRef" is unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from related siblings such as wb_compat_scan, wb_native_convert, or wb_native_json, so an agent cannot confidently pick this tool on purpose alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the many native/compat siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the implicit default of a dry run, which tells the agent about side effects rather than about tool selection.

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