Set Project CRS

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context. It states that it changes how layers are projected on the map canvas, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., reprojection of existing layers, refresh requirements).

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the action and examples without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose and parameter format. Minor gap: could mention that the tool affects the map display immediately.

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 0%, so the description compensates by giving real examples of valid CRS strings ('EPSG:4326', 'EPSG:3857'), indicating the expected format and common values.

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 the action ('Set'), the resource ('project coordinate reference system'), and provides concrete examples like 'EPSG:4326'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'set_layer_crs', which is for layers.

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 when changing the project CRS, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'set_layer_crs' or 'set_canvas_extent'. No exclusions or conditions provided.

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