wb_plan_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the plan is applied to a clone (so the existing build is not mutated) and collision results are only approximate. It does not say what happens on validation failure, whether the clone is persisted or discarded, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the four pipeline stages in execution order. It is dense to the point of slight ambiguity ('it' could refer to the plan or the clone), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 three-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation's intent but leaves return values, error behavior, and parameter formats entirely unexplained. An agent could invoke it, but would be guessing about the plan object's structure and the report format.

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 all three required parameters, including a free-form nested 'plan' object with additionalProperties true. The description never explains what 'file' points to, what 'catalog' selects, or what shape the 'plan' object must take, so it fails to compensate for the documentation 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?

The description names a concrete multi-step operation: compile a plan, apply it to a clone, validate, and report approximate collisions. This is clearly a dry-run preview pipeline, distinguishable from the mutating siblings wb_plan_apply and wb_plan_compile, though it never explicitly names those siblings or states that the live world is untouched.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'apply it to a clone' signals a non-destructive rehearsal, so an agent can infer it should run this before wb_plan_apply. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as wb_collisions or wb_validate.

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