Scroll the user's view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (scroll/zoom) and mentions that selection is optional, which implies selection only changes when select=true. However, it does not describe the return value or explicitly note that the operation is non-destructive, which could be relevant for agents deciding to call it.

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 long, with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second gives timing guidance. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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 simple viewport manipulation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and when. It does not mention return behavior or error cases, but those are not critical for this straightforward, non-destructive operation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it repeats 'specific nodes' and 'optionally select them'—but does not provide additional syntax or constraints. The schema itself already documents each parameter fully.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Scroll and zoom the user's Figma viewport onto specific nodes,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that read or modify node data. It also mentions the optional selection behavior, adding further clarity.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Call this after building something so the user is looking at it when you report back.' It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough. The schema's note about omitting nodeIds to fit the whole page adds an additional hint, though it's in the schema rather than the description.

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