title_widget_build_from_manifest

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose safety and side effects. It does reveal the dry_run behavior (returns spec without creating an asset), which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing assets, requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. The core 'Build' action implies mutation but lacks detail on reversibility or prerequisites.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose and clearly states the dry_run alternative. No wasted words, perfect for quick scanning.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description omits several key aspects: how to supply the manifest (object vs. manifest_path), what the non-dry-run build returns, overwriting behavior, and any prerequisites. The description is too brief for the tool's complexity, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 50%, so the description should help clarify remaining parameters. It clarifies 'manifest' and 'dry_run' somewhat, but does not explain 'id', 'asset_name', 'package_path', or 'manifest_path'. The meaning of those parameters is partly inferable from names and defaults, making the overall semantics adequate but not thorough.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: building WBP_TitleRenderer from a title manifest. It also distinguishes the dry_run mode for generating a widget spec instead of creating an asset. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like widget_build_from_json or title_manifest_create.

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 description implies use when you have a title manifest and want to build the WBP_TitleRenderer widget. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of 'manifest' and the dry_run option provide clear usage context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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