wb_live_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: default dry-run preview and default NodeRef/reference remapping ('v0.5 remaps cloned NodeRefs and known internal references by default'). It omits other important behavior for a mutation: undo/transaction semantics, whether new names are generated, what happens when the selection is empty, and what the preview returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the default remap behavior, then the safety gate. Dense and efficient; the 'v0.5' version tag is minor noise but ties the behavior claim to a release.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is thin. Count (number of copies), the required rpc_dir transport parameter, timeout, and the return/preview payload all go unaddressed, leaving an agent guessing on core invocation details.

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 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implies x/y/z are a per-copy offset, explicates apply as the preview toggle, and gestures at keep_noderefs via the remapping sentence, but the required rpc_dir, plus count and timeout, are entirely unexplained.

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: duplicate the current WB selection, with an optional per-copy offset. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling wb_duplicate (or wb_array/wb_live_batch), so an agent must infer that the 'live' prefix means it acts on the current editor selection rather than stored data.

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 phrase 'Preview unless apply=true' gives real when-to-use guidance for the dry-run mode, which is the most important decision for a mutating tool. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over wb_duplicate, wb_array, or wb_copy-style alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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