wb_live_delete

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the operation is routed through WB history (implying it is undoable via wb_live_undo) and it defaults to a non-destructive preview. It omits what happens with an empty selection, connection requirements via rpc_dir, and any error behavior, so the burden is only partly met.

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, the destructive action is stated first and the safety default second. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the safety default but not the required connection parameter or timeout, leaving an agent unable to reason about invocation requirements without opening the schema.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it only explains 'apply'. The required parameter rpc_dir and the 'timeout' parameter are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (delete) and resource (the current World Builder selection), and clarifies the deletion path (through WB history). That distinguishes it from generic mutation siblings like wb_live_undo/wb_live_redo, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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 clause 'Preview unless apply=true' tells the agent exactly how to invoke it safely in dry-run vs commit mode, which is the key usage decision. It stops short of saying when deletion is appropriate versus wb_live_undo or wb_live_select.

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