Create Facade Mapping

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specifics: it builds a network with branches, Null outputs, and preview composite, and clarifies that it's a skeleton for later calibration. This provides useful context beyond annotations.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey the core pipeline, its purpose as a calibration skeleton, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the key action, and every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the generated structure and its limitations. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or what the agent should expect after invocation, but schema coverage covers parameter details well.

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?

All 13 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters like blend_curve and blend_width relate to the pipeline (e.g., 'alpha gradient via Level gamma'). It doesn't repeat schema details but gives integrative context.

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 clearly states it builds a multi-projector architectural facade rig, detailing specific components like Crop, Corner Pin, and edge-blend masks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_projection_mapping by focusing on multi-projector setups and calibration skeleton delivery.

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?

The description implies usage for initial rig building, noting that fine-tuning (corners, color match, camera transforms) is left for live alignment. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, it provides clear context for its intended stage in the workflow.

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