Zoom To Selection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description's added clause about 'verifiable structured results' and 'write and path restrictions subject to service capability' is generic boilerplate that conveys no tool-specific behavior, such as which view is affected or whether it requires the selection to be non-empty.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, so it is not bloated. However, the second sentence is filler that consumes half the text while adding no actionable information, so it does not fully earn its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the description should at minimum explain the parameter roles and the selection precondition; it does neither.

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?

Five required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, layer_name, layout_name, mapframe_name) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Notably it never explains the relationship between layout_name/mapframe_name and map_name/layer_name, which determines where the zoom actually lands.

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 is essentially a Chinese-language restatement of the tool name and title ('Zoom To Selection'). It does not distinguish this tool from the many nearby siblings that also move a camera or extent, such as arcgis_pro_zoom_to_layer, arcgis_pro_zoom_active_view_to_layer, arcgis_pro_mapframe_zoom_to_bookmark, and arcgis_pro_sdk_zoom_layer, nor does it explain what 'selection' must already exist.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it should call this instead of arcgis_pro_zoom_to_layer or arcgis_pro_zoom_active_view_to_all_layers, nor what precondition (an existing layer selection) is required.

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