Create projection mapping

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the generated structure: a 'projection' container with a Corner Pin warp, Select TOP, and a Null output 'ready for setup_output'. It also mentions that corner positions are parameters, adding non-obvious behavioral detail about drivability/saving.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: action, workflow (source/output), and parameter flexibility. No fluff or redundancy; front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

With a moderate-complexity create tool, the description covers the workflow (input source, created nodes, output Null) and mentions the key capability (corner params are drivable/savable). It does not discuss edge cases like node naming or overwrites, but given the annotations and schema, this is sufficient.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor value by explaining the source comes via a Select TOP and that corner positions are parameters, but these are not input-schema parameters. The schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Wrap a source TOP in a Corner Pin warp for projection mapping' and clearly states the interaction ('drag the four corner handles to line the image up with a physical surface'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_led_mapper or create_vioso_warp_panel by naming the Corner Pin technique.

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?

It clearly implies the use case (projection mapping with manual corner alignment) and adds context about source flexibility via a Select TOP ('so it can live anywhere'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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