Create MPCDI projection mapper

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds the specific scaffold contents, which provides useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting existing nodes or requiring a pre-existing MPCDI config file.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and output. Every element adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description offers a high-level overview of the scaffold's contents but omits parameter-specific behavior and any operational caveats. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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 descriptions cover only name, config_file, and parent_path; active, region_count, and projector_count lack explanatory text. The description indirectly links projector_count and region_count to 'projector maps' and 'region maps', but does not clarify parameter constraints or how config_file is used, leaving gaps that the description only partially compensates for.

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 tool creates an MPCDI projection-calibration scaffold and lists specific contents (MPCDI TOP/DAT, projector maps, region maps, setup notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_projection_mapping or projector_calibration_wizard by focusing on MPCDI-specific calibration structures.

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 term 'MPCDI projection-calibration scaffold' implicitly conveys when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. The description does not mention when to prefer this over similar creation tools, leaving the agent to infer from the MPCDI keyword.

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