Create Facade Mapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'Build' is expected. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it creates a calibration skeleton, fans one source into N branches, and leaves alignment work for later—important behavioral expectations for the agent and user.

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?

Two sentences deliver a dense, front-loaded description with no filler. The first sentence explains the composition; the second sets expectations for what is left incomplete. Every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview, names the main branches and operators, and clarifies the calibration-skeleton scope. It does not detail return values (not needed for a build tool) or explicitly list operator names, but it is sufficient for tool selection and invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping phrases like 'one source TOP' to source_top_path, 'N per-projector' to projector_count, and 'edge-blend Ramp/Composite' to blend_curve/blend_width. It frames these as initial values within a calibration skeleton, which the bare schema does not convey.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Build' and the resource 'multi-projector architectural facade rig', and enumerates concrete components (Crop, Corner Pin, Ramp/Composite, Level, Nulls, preview). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools like create_projection_mapping or create_led_mapper.

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 when to use this tool by stating it 'Ships as a calibration skeleton' and that 'per-projector corners, color match, and (when 3D) camera transforms are left to live install alignment.' This tells the agent the tool is for initial scaffolding, not final calibration, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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