Set Project CRS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states that it changes how layers are projected but does not disclose side effects like reprojection of existing layers or changes to canvas extent. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentences in under 30 words, front-loaded with key information, and no superfluous content.

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?

Covers purpose and parameter format but lacks details on side effects and usage context. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is adequate but could be more informative regarding behavioral impact and alternatives.

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 single parameter 'crs' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by providing example formats ('EPSG:4326', 'EPSG:3857'), clarifying the expected input type. This compensates for the schema gap.

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 'Set the project coordinate reference system' with examples like 'EPSG:4326', 'EPSG:3857', and explains that it changes how layers are projected. This distinguishes it from similar tools like set_layer_crs.

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?

Usage is implied from the description: used when you want to change the project's CRS. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., set_layer_crs), nor any prerequisites or context.

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