define_projection

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is metadata-only, does not transform coordinates, mutates the dataset definition, requires confirm=true, warns of downstream analysis corruption if wrong WKID is used. This is comprehensive and beyond what the schema provides.

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, front-loaded with action and purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 critical nature of this metadata-mutation tool and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral implications, and required confirm parameter. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (wkid, confirm, dataset). The description reinforces the confirm requirement and the 'mutates dataset definition' aspect, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema's existing coverage.

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 it assigns coordinate reference metadata using ArcPy DefineProjection and a WKID/EPSG code. It explicitly distinguishes itself from transformation tools like project_features by noting it is metadata-only, which differentiates it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this only when the dataset coordinates are already in the specified CRS but the spatial reference is missing or unknown.' This clearly defines the appropriate context and implies 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.