Create Facade Mapping

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: builds a skeleton with specific nodes, leaves certain aspects for live alignment, creates self-animated noise TOP if source_mode is 'synthetic', and provides optional 3D facade geometry handling. Could mention performance considerations or side effects like network clutter.

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?

Single paragraph is well-structured, front-loaded with main purpose, and each sentence adds value. Could be improved with bullet points for clarity, but current form is effective for the complexity (13 parameters). No superfluous 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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the build process, optional features (3D), and limitations (calibration skeleton). Sets expectations that further alignment is needed. Could explicitly state what the generated component contains, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds architectural context (pipeline steps, conditional requirement for source_top_path), explains purpose of source_mode (synthetic vs existing_top), and clarifies facade_geometry_path behavior. This goes beyond schema by explaining how parameters interact.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: building a multi-projector architectural facade rig with specific processing pipeline (Crop, Corner Pin, Ramp/Composite mask, Level). It includes resource terms like 'facade rig', 'per-projector branches', and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_projection_mapping' by focusing on multi-projector setups with alignment skeleton.

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 calibration setup ('ships as a calibration skeleton') and mentions that fine-tuning (corners, color match, camera transforms) is left to live install alignment. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_projection_mapping' or when not to use it (e.g., single-projector scenarios).

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