define_projection

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

The description discloses metadata-only nature and the need for confirmation, but does not explicitly address what happens if the dataset already has a spatial reference (overwrite vs. assignment), leaving a minor gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded sentences convey purpose, key constraints, and warnings without extraneous information.

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?

Given the simple tool interface and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, behavior, and constraints, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_features.

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?

The description reinforces the confirm requirement and warns about misuse, adding value beyond the schema's descriptions for wkid and confirm. The dataset parameter lacks schema description, but the overall tool description compensates partially.

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 'Assign a CRS (by WKID/EPSG) to a dataset with an unknown spatial reference' and distinguishes from projection tools by noting 'Metadata-only; does NOT transform coordinates'.

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 explicitly requires 'confirm=true' and warns 'Defining the wrong CRS silently corrupts every downstream analysis', giving clear guidance on safe use and implying alternatives like project_features for coordinate transformation.

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