wb_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden: it explicitly flags that the domain contains write operations and that confirm is mandatory. It doesn't describe effects, errors, or return behavior, but the confirm gate is the most important behavioral trait.

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 tight sentences front-load the command inventory and follow with the safety caveat. Every phrase earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 description plus schema is almost sufficient to construct a valid call, and the confirm gate is clear. But with no annotations and many sibling tools, the boundary between wb_manage and specialized add/done/key tools remains implicit, so an agent may struggle to decide between them.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the command parameter description explicitly points to the tool description for allowed first words. The description supplies those command words (add/done/key), which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies a concrete management domain with specific sub-operations: add (all-type entry with AI classification), done (tagging), and key (API key issuance/list/revocation). It is actionable and coherent, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish wb_manage from specialized siblings like wb_add or wb_note_add.

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?

It states that write operations require confirm and that key operations are better performed directly in a terminal, which is useful context. However, it doesn't explain when wb_manage should be chosen over the many sibling tools that cover add/edit/done/tag operations.

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