wb_spawn_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavior: the operation is non-mutating by default and only writes with write=true, and lookups fail on ambiguous queries. It omits error shape on failure, whether duplicates are allowed, required catalog/file context, and what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the mutation gate is front-loaded at the end of a tight block. Slight deduction because 'exact/search-resolved' and 'ambiguous text queries fail' are compressed to the point of being cryptic about what a valid query looks like.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage and no output schema needs far more than three sentences. Key unknowns—transform units, what catalog/file resolution means, and what the dry-run returns—are left entirely unaddressed.

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 16 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only 'asset' (exact or search-resolved) and 'write' (dry-run gate); file, catalog, parent, module, variant, x/y/z/yaw/pitch/roll, name, noderef_prefix and generate_noderef are entirely 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?

States a specific verb ('Insert'), a specific resource ('one exact/search-resolved indexed asset') and an explicit destination ('a saved-build group'), which separates it from pool spawning or live spawn siblings. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Gives two real usage rules: ambiguous text queries fail, and the call is a dry-run unless write=true. It does not say when to pick this over wb_live_spawn_asset or wb_asset_pool_spawn, nor whether an existing group is required before spawning.

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