wb_native_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that write defaults to false (a dry-run posture), but it never says what write=true actually mutates, where files land, or whether the operation is reversible or idempotent.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the safety-relevant default placed second. No filler, though domain jargon ('mirroring the WB importer') consumes space without adding actionable clarity.

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?

A four-parameter tool with three required inputs, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema needs the description to define its inputs and side effects. It explains half of them and leaves the write path and destination semantics ambiguous.

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, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description partially compensates by explaining `bundle` (a captured template bundle) and `write` (default false), but `export_file` and `output` — two of the three required parameters — are left entirely undefined.

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?

Names a concrete verb and artifact: generate WolvenKit JSON intermediates from a captured template bundle. That is specific enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as wb_native_convert, wb_native_import, or wb_native_template_plan, which plausibly operate on the same bundle.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over the many wb_native_* alternatives, nor any prerequisite or ordering guidance (e.g. after wb_native_preflight or before wb_native_import). The only contextual hint is the default of write.

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