wb_add

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: this is a write operation requiring confirm:true, which is a safety gate. It also explains that type skips AI classification, adding behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention side effects, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on success/failure. Still, the written-operation requirement is clearly disclosed, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact, front-loads the main purpose, and packs useful information about parameters and the confirmation requirement into a few sentences. It is slightly dense with inline parentheses, but every sentence earns its place and there is no waste.

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 is a write operation with a pass-through schema and no output schema. The description covers the core entry behavior, the confirmation gate, and the type parameter's role. It lacks explicit return-value or error-handling context, but for a simple add operation with a fully self-described schema, this is adequate. The absence of annotations raises the burden but the description handles most of it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the text and type semantics but adds the hint about prefixes like 修复/优化/闪念/日程 guiding classification, which is useful. It does not add much beyond the schema for type or confirm, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: it performs 全类型录入 (all-type entry) and routes entries to different tables such as 待办/闪念/bug/日程/成长. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wb_todo or wb_idea_add by being the general entry point with AI-routed classification. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to differentiate from, though the purpose is clear enough.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: for general entry when AI classification is desired, and when to use the type parameter to force a specific type. It also mentions the CLI equivalent, which aids discoverability. It does not explicitly say 'use wb_todo for todos' but the routing behavior is implied and the type parameter allows selecting specific tables, giving clear context for usage.

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