Create VIOSO warp panel

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

The description discloses what the scaffold contains, which is useful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not mention potential side effects like name conflicts, the need for an existing config file, or how parameters affect the output. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and output components. No redundant or filler words.

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 creation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but omits details about return values, parameter effects, or prerequisites. It is adequate for basic selection but insufficient for confident invocation without schema help.

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 50%, with three parameters (active, projector_index, blend_zone_count) lacking descriptions. The description mentions 'blend-zone maps' and 'projector metadata,' which vaguely relate to blend_zone_count and projector_index, but it does not explicitly map parameters or explain their behavior. It provides some context but leaves gaps.

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's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('VIOSO projection-warp scaffold'), and lists output components (VIOSO TOP, blend-zone maps, projector metadata, setup notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_projection_mapping or create_mesh_warp.

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 a VIOSO warp scaffold is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so an agent must infer the context from the name and description.

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