reproject_to_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the source is not changed, the result is a new 32-bit float view with a default naming convention, and the call reports size, time, and whether the result is empty when fields do not overlap. It also flags the accuracy caveat (registration set by the solutions; verify residual against the reference).

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?

Information is front-loaded (what it does, then when to use, then side effects), and every sentence adds something. It is dense but slightly over-packed into the first long sentence with nested parentheticals.

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 no-output-schema mutation-of-a-new-view tool, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, defaults, and a summary of returned facts. It stops short of describing the return structure in detail, though the reported fields are named.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including defaults and the interpolation enum. The description adds only a behavioral note that the result comes from a single interpolation of the source, and says nothing about clamp or the enum choices beyond that.

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?

It states a precise verb and resource (resample onto another image's pixel grid via the two astrometric solutions) and clarifies the outcome (result takes the reference's size and solution). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like align_to_reference or resample_image, so an agent still has to infer the boundary between them.

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?

Gives a concrete use case (bring a master from another telescope/session onto a reference grid) and a hard prerequisite (both views need a solution, run_plate_solve). It names no exclusion or alternative tool, so the when-not side is left implicit.

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