set_project_crs

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't state what happens to existing CRS data (overwrite?), whether the operation is reversible, any required permissions, or constraints. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and includes secondary context without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the information provided.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits critical details about parameter formats, mutation effects, and how this tool fits with siblings like get_project_crs or register_crs_definition.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. The nested 'origin' object and fields like wkt, code, units are left completely undocumented. An agent would have to guess what values are expected.

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 action (set) and resource (project CRS) with the addition of origin metadata. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_project_crs, which is the read counterpart. The purpose is understandable but sibling relationship is unaddressed.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reproject_point, transform_coords, or register_crs_definition. The phrase 'for resource/environment mapping workflows' hints at context but doesn't specify when to choose this tool over others.

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