set_fill_projection_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does not state what 'advanced' changes, whether existing projection data is overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure; it only lists projection categories.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. It is concise, though the word 'details' is vague enough that the sentence could be more informative without becoming bloated.

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 a mutation-style tool with a nested `settings` object, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description still fails to explain how `settings` should be structured or how this tool differs from its basic sibling.

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 the `uid`, `mode`, or nested `settings` parameters. It lists possible projection types but does not tie them to the `mode` parameter or clarify what belongs in `settings`.

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 uses a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('fill projection details'), and it names several projection modes. However, it does not distinguish this 'advanced' tool from the sibling `set_fill_projection`, so an agent cannot tell which projection tool to choose from the description alone.

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 tool versus `set_fill_projection`, `get_fill_projection`, or `set_fill_parameters`. The description only implies that it configures projection details, leaving the choice among closely related siblings to inference.

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