wb_path_array

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the default is a dry run and that write=true commits changes, but it does not explain what is created, whether the target file is mutated, how reference safety works, or what happens to existing objects.

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?

The definition is two short sentences with the core action and safety default front-loaded. There is no wasted wording or repetition.

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 13-parameter mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. A two-sentence description cannot adequately cover parameter meanings, side effects, or operational constraints for a tool of this complexity.

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 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning for write by saying dry-run unless write=true, and hints that path can be a polyline or WB marker group, but it leaves count, points, spacing, closed, orient, yaw_offset, marker_group, curve_samples, keep_noderefs, and noderef_prefix completely 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: placing reference-safe copies along a polyline or WB marker group. That path-oriented scope distinguishes it from sibling array tools like wb_array, wb_grid, and wb_radial_array, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'along a polyline or WB marker group' implies when this tool is appropriate, and 'Dry-run unless write=true' gives a clear usage condition for committing changes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over wb_array or other array/scatter siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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