Create MPCDI projection mapper

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by detailing what the scaffold includes (TOP/DAT, projector maps, region maps, setup notes), going beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing nodes, but the openWorld hint covers the create behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, lists the core deliverables, and contains no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite the annotations and simple schema, the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description omits how parameters like 'config_file', 'region_count', and 'projector_count' affect the scaffold, and it does not explain what is returned or what the agent should expect after invocation. This leaves significant gaps for reliable use.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely references 'projector maps' and 'region maps' but never explicitly explains how 'region_count', 'projector_count', 'name', 'active', or 'config_file' are used. Three parameters (active, region_count, projector_count) have no schema descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Create') and specific resource ('MPCDI projection-calibration scaffold'), and lists concrete artifacts (MPCDI TOP/DAT, projector maps, region maps, setup notes). This distinguishes it from generic 'create_projection_mapping' and other projection-related siblings.

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 MPCDI-specific wording implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_projection_mapping' or 'projector_calibration_wizard'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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