Transform Coordinates

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral clarity by detailing input/output formats and that the tool returns transformed geometry. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value; no redundant or irrelevant 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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input formats and return format. However, it lacks details on CRS notation, constraints on input combinations, and error handling. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the structure of point, points, and bbox parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, source_crs and target_crs are left undefined (no format hints like 'EPSG:4326'), and it does not clarify that exactly one of point/points/bbox should be provided.

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 'Transform coordinates between CRS' and specifies the input formats (single point, list, or bbox) and output format. It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_layer_crs or get_layer_crs, which deal with layer/project CRS rather than coordinate transformation.

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 coordinate transformation is needed but does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools or provide prerequisites (e.g., valid CRS formats). No exclusions or context for selecting this over other tools are given.

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