wb_plan_compile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important trait — that no build is edited — but nothing about validation failures, whether a live game session is needed, cost/determinism, or what the compiled output looks like beyond the phrase "exact indexed spawn operations".

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter guidance noted elsewhere.

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 tool with a free-form nested plan object, an undocumented catalog parameter, no output schema and no annotations, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot determine the required plan structure or catalog semantics without trial and error.

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% for both parameters and nested objects are allowed, so the schema explains nothing. The description only vaguely gestures at the plan format ("cp77wb-plan/1") and says nothing about what `catalog` is (a path? a name? a catalog id?) or what the plan object must contain.

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 specific verb ("compile") and resource ("cp77wb-plan/1 specification") and states the output ("exact indexed spawn operations"). The clause "without editing a build" implicitly distinguishes it from wb_plan_apply, though neither that sibling nor wb_plan_preview is named.

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?

"Without editing a build" implies a non-mutating compile step, which hints at when to use it versus wb_plan_apply, but the guidance is only implied. No explicit ordering (e.g. compile before apply), no prerequisites, and no naming of the preview/apply alternatives.

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