Zoom to nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Changes no design data' and adds non-obvious behavior like page switching and slide-focus semantics. It stops short of detailing limits or failure conditions beyond the result summary.

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?

Front-loads the core action and usage, then layers in the Slides-specific detail. It is dense near the end, but every clause carries semantic weight (zoom format, page switch, slide focus, result).

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the result ('which slide is focused and the view, or why the view did not change'). Combined with full param coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though tool selection against similar viewport tools is left implicit.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: zoom default 'fit' and the numeric-as-string convention, the interaction between nodeIds and slide focus, and that view operates without nodes. These exceed what the schema text alone conveys.

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?

States a specific verb pair (scroll and zoom) plus resource (the viewport) and scope (show nodes). Clearly distinguishes itself from navigation and selection siblings like figma_navigate_page and figma_select.

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 clear context — 'after building something, so the user sees it' — which tells the agent when this is relevant. It also notes the 'view alone needs no nodes' edge case, but does not name alternative tools or contrast with figma_navigate_page/figma_select explicitly.

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