wb_live_save

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the most safety-critical trait — that the tool previews by default and only mutates with apply=true. It does not say what 'save' actually writes to, whether it overwrites existing data, whether it is reversible, or how timeout behaves, so significant gaps remain.

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 action and scope, then immediately the safety behavior. No padding, though 'WB's native save() path' is an opaque term that spends words without informing.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, yet the description covers only the apply flag. An agent cannot tell what rpc_dir should contain, what the preview returns, or what a successful save produces.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains the semantics of apply (preview vs. commit). The required rpc_dir and the optional timeout are never mentioned, leaving the caller to guess at their meaning and format.

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 (save) and a scoped resource (all saveable top-level active World Builder roots), which clearly separates it from siblings like wb_live_delete or wb_live_state. The phrase 'native save() path' is unexplained jargon, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 'Preview unless apply=true' clause implies the default dry-run workflow, which is useful context for deciding when to call it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no prerequisites (e.g., when a live connection or saved-state context is required) beyond a vague implication.

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