set_map_frame_extent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at three alternative modes but does not disclose side effects on the layout, whether the project must be saved, precedence when multiple mode parameters are supplied, or what happens on invalid layer/layout names.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 8 parameters, a mode-selector design, and no annotations, the description leaves real ambiguity — an agent cannot tell whether scale, extent, layer_name, and zoom_to_all can be combined or are exclusive. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the invocation semantics are under-specified.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'layer, an extent or a scale' loosely mirrors three of those parameters but adds no format or precedence information beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Point') and resource ('a layout's map frame') and enumerates the three things it can be aimed at (layer, extent, scale). It is clear, but it does nothing to distinguish it from close siblings like add_map_frame or set_layout_element.

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 three target modes are listed, implying they are alternatives, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement that scale/extent/layer_name/zoom_to_all are mutually exclusive modes. An agent gets no help choosing between this tool and set_map_view, zoom_to_layer, or add_map_frame.

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