pixera_plan_projection_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Produce... plan' implies a read-only planning operation, but it never states that no scene mutation occurs, whether it depends on a loaded project, or whether results are deterministic. For a 5-parameter planning tool, this leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the artifact and pipeline order stated immediately; nothing is padded or redundant. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why surrounding gaps (params, usage) are unfilled.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but that is the only burden lifted. With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and five undocumented inputs, the description omits usage conditions, parameter meaning, and side-effect profile, leaving the agent under-equipped for a relatively complex tool.

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%, so the description would need to compensate for all five parameters. It mentions none: 'curved', 'tracked', 'content_type', 'surface_type', and 'projector_count' get no explanation, and content_type/surface_type expose no enums so valid values are unknown. The names are partly intuitive, but no semantic value is added.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Produce'), a concrete artifact ('ordered, scenario-tailored Pixera setup plan'), and even sketches the internal pipeline (Screens -> Mapping -> Compositing). It is clearly a planning tool, distinguishable in spirit from siblings like pixera_recommend_warp_method or pixera_validate_softedge, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus the many sibling recommenders (pixera_recommend_calibration_method, pixera_recommend_markers_for_projector) or validators. No prerequisites, no statement of whether a project must be loaded, and no exclusions are given. The agent must infer applicability entirely.

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