set_fill_projection

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: it does not say whether the operation overwrites an existing projection, what permissions or layer state are required, or what 'transactional transform updates' actually guarantees (rollback? atomic apply?). That phrase gestures at behavior but never explains it.

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 no wasted words, but for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation or schema coverage it is too terse rather than appropriately sized. The trailing clause 'with transactional transform updates' is vague enough to add noise rather than information.

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 everything else is missing: no parameter guidance, no mode semantics, no interaction with the advanced sibling, no behavioral context for a write operation. The definition is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently.

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% for five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: uid, scale, offset, and rotation are never mentioned. The only added meaning is that 'mode' likely takes Fill/UV/Triplanar values, which is partial credit at best.

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 ('Set ... projection') and enumerates the projection modes it covers (Fill, UV, Triplanar), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_fill_projection_advanced or explain how it relates to get_fill_projection, which keeps it below 5.

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 use this versus set_fill_projection_advanced, get_fill_projection, or set_fill_baking_mesh_inputs-style alternatives. The only hint is the implicit framing of 'setting' a projection, with no exclusions or preconditions stated.

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