wb_live_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: the default is a non-mutating preview and the pre-reload state is preserved as an undoable step. It omits error/failure conditions, what happens to descendants of the root, and any permission or connection requirements implied by needing an rpc_dir.

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, zero filler, with the core action and its scope stated first and the safety default appended. Every clause carries information.

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-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It needs to explain the rpc_dir/timeout parameters, what a successful reload returns, and how failures are surfaced before an agent can call it reliably.

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 four parameters, and the description only clarifies one of them ('apply' as the preview toggle) while 'path' is at best obliquely implied by 'one top-level active WB root'. 'rpc_dir' and 'timeout' receive no meaning at all, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: reload one top-level active WB root from data/objects, which is clearly distinct from wb_live_save, wb_live_undo, and wb_live_delete. However, it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with the undo/redo tools that could also restore prior state, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

'Preview unless apply=true' gives concrete guidance on how to make the call safely, which is real usage direction. It still does not say when to choose this over wb_live_undo (to revert) or wb_live_save, nor what precondition must hold for a root to be 'active' and eligible for reload.

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