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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by naming exactly what is destroyed (the previous address), the recovery path (vedutum_undo_last_change), the cost (no points), the latency (~a minute), and where the result surfaces (vedutum_get_project). This is precisely the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive, slow, external-data-dependent mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first, followed by consequences, cost and recovery in descending order of importance. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a destructive, slow, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects, reversibility, timing, cost and result visibility. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 address format, language enum and project_id sourcing are already fully documented. The description adds useful context about what the surroundings data consists of (buildings, roads, terrain; OpenStreetMap, EU-DEM) and thereby implies the meaning of the surroundings flag, but never ties that to the parameter name explicitly. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Sets the address of a project's building site") and then spells out the concrete consequences: OpenStreetMap geocoding for sun position/shadows plus loading neighbouring buildings, roads and terrain. No sibling tool does anything similar, so the agent can identify it immediately.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it replaces the previous address, vedutum_undo_last_change reverts it, and it costs no points. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but no sibling overlaps this function, so the guidance is effectively complete for selection purposes.

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