wb_worker_bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the operation is dispatched through an external verified .NET worker (an environment dependency), and it defaults to a non-executing preview. It omits what run=true actually mutates, where output is written, and how failures or timeouts surface.

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, front-loaded with the action and ending with the safety-relevant default. No filler, though the second sentence is a fragment that could have been spent on parameter meaning instead.

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 5-parameter, 2-required mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs far more than two sentences. An agent cannot determine required inputs, output artifacts, or side effects from this definition alone.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It explains only `run` (boolean, default false); export_file, output, worker, and timeout are left completely undefined in both schema and prose, leaving the agent to guess at file formats and worker selection.

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 verb pair (preview/create) and a resource ("exact RED default templates") executed via a ".NET worker", which is more than a restatement of the name. However, "RED default templates" is unexplained jargon, and the description does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as wb_worker_import, wb_build_worker_import, or wb_worker_preflight.

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 only usage signal is "run=false by default", which implies a dry-run-first workflow, but the description never states when to use this versus wb_worker_preflight, wb_worker_import, or wb_build_worker_import. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no guidance on when flipping run=true is appropriate.

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