wb_generate_road

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the operation is side-effect-free unless write=true. Beyond that it is silent on what is created (actors, splines, meshes), how tiling handles corners or spacing overflow, and what happens on failure partway through a write.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety-critical qualifier, with no filler. The terseness is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than padding.

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?

Eleven parameters with seven required, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema make this a complex tool whose description explains almost none of the surface. An agent would have to infer the meaning of required geometry and asset arguments entirely from parameter names.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and mostly does not. It only implicitly maps to tile_asset, edge_asset, points, and write, leaving file, name, parent, catalog, spacing, width, and yaw_offset entirely undefined for the agent.

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 and resource ("Generate repeated road tiles and optional edge assets along a path") and distinguishes itself from mesh/single-object generators in the sibling set. It is not differentiated from close siblings like wb_generate_corridor, wb_generate_fence, or wb_path_array, which an agent would also consider for a path-following generator.

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 only guidance is the dry-run/write toggle; there is no statement of when this tool is preferable to wb_generate_corridor, wb_generate_fence, or wb_path_array. Nothing is said about prerequisites such as the assets needing to exist in the given catalog or the parent needing to be a valid container.

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