Translate CityJSON coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does state that without minxyz jio falls back to the model minimum and with minxyz it shifts relative to the supplied minimum. However, it does not say whether the transformation modifies data in place, returns a new object, or affects the coordinate reference system, which are material for a transform tool.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the main operation and then explaining the optional parameter's effect. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but the whole description remains efficiently sized.

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 transformation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not state whether the dataset is modified in place or a new handle is returned, how this differs from reprojection/CRS assignment, or what success/errors look like. The algorithm is explained, but the operational context an agent needs is incomplete.

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 only 50%; dataset_id is described in the schema, while minxyz is not. The description adds meaning to minxyz by explaining its role and the default when omitted. It does not detail the ordering or units of the three numbers, but the core semantic is conveyed.

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 identifies a concrete operation: translating CityJSON coordinates via cjio, with an explicit explanation of how minxyz affects the shift. Although it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cityjson_reproject or cityjson_assign_crs, the phrase 'shifted relative to the supplied minimum' makes the coordinate-translation intent clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling transformation tools, nor any mention of alternatives or excluded cases. The description only explains the behavior with and without minxyz, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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