Create interactive projection mapping

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value by detailing the tool's output (returns output/debug paths and explicit warnings about camera, blob tracking, and calibration states). It discloses behavior beyond annotations, such as handling fallback to synthetic sources, but does not cover auth needs or rate limits (likely not applicable). No contradiction with 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 a single, dense paragraph that is front-loaded with key information (purpose, defaults, outputs). It avoids wasted words, but structuring as bullet points or breaking into sections could improve scannability for a tool with 23 parameters.

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 the high parameter count (23) and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what the tool does, its defaults, and what it returns (output/debug paths and warnings). However, it lacks explicit detail on the structure of the returned paths or how the warnings are formatted, which would help an agent fully understand the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description provides a high-level summary of parameters (e.g., defaults for source, camera_index) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It lists components but not detailed parameter semantics.

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 that the tool builds a synthetic-safe interactive projection mapping rig with detailed components (frame-difference motion field, blob mask, visual TOPs, Corner Pin mapping) and states default behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_projection_mapping' by emphasizing interactivity and camera/synthetic inputs.

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 provides clear context: defaults to 'camera' for installations and 'synthetic' for previews without camera permission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_motion_reactive' or 'create_blob_reactive', nor does it include explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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