wb_generate_room

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: the operation is a dry run unless write=true, so an agent knows the default is non-committing. It omits what happens on write (what is created or overwritten), whether existing geometry is replaced, required permissions, and idempotency — significant gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 safety note is front-loaded after the purpose. It is efficient, though for a 13-parameter tool the terseness borders on under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

Given 13 parameters, 7 of them required, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot tell what units width/depth use, how assets are referenced, or what a successful dry run returns. Only the write-gating behavior is adequately covered.

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 13 parameters, and the description only explains one of them (write). Required inputs like file, parent, catalog, wall_asset, width, depth, and segment — plus optional x/y/z placement, name, and floor_asset — get no meaning, format, or constraint hints anywhere, so the agent must guess at asset ID formats and coordinate conventions.

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+resource pair ("Generate a rectangular room shell") and adds the source constraint ("from verified indexed assets"), which distinguishes it from the sibling generators (wb_generate_corridor, wb_generate_road, wb_generate_fence) that build other shapes. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than be routed to it.

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?

"Dry-run unless write=true" gives a usable invocation default and implies the safe path, and "verified indexed assets" hints that validation should precede the call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the other wb_generate_* tools that produce adjacent structures.

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