wb_volume_scatter

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full safety burden and does disclose the most important trait: the operation is non-mutating by default and only commits when write=true. It does not say what file is modified, whether existing content is overwritten, or how keep_noderefs/noderef_prefix affect output, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the dry-run caveat. Every sentence earns its place; the problem is under-specification, not verbosity.

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 high-complexity tool (15 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation), yet the description covers only the core concept and the write default. Spatial arguments, determinism via seed, and noderef behavior are all unaddressed, which is inadequate for an agent to call it correctly 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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only illuminates two of them (shape via the volume enumeration, write via the dry-run note), leaving seed, count, size_x/y/z, center_x/y/z, random_yaw, keep_noderefs, noderef_prefix, file, and path unexplained anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb ('Scatter copies') and a clear scope ('inside box/cylinder/sphere volumes'), which distinguishes it from flat tools like wb_scatter or wb_polygon_scatter implicitly through the volume/shape language. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

'Dry-run unless write=true' implies the intended preview-then-commit workflow, which is useful usage guidance. However, it never states when to pick this over wb_scatter, wb_polygon_scatter, wb_live_surface_scatter, or wb_array, leaving the choice to be inferred from the volume wording.

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