set_focus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the side effects: 'selecting it and scrolling viewport to it'. This is transparent about the tool's mutating behavior. It could add a bit more context (e.g., about errors or prerequisites), but for a simple tool this is adequate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a concise explanation of how the action is performed. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its side effects. It lacks a few niceties (e.g., whether the node must exist or if focus is purely visual), but these are not critical for a straightforward utility.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the sole parameter 'nodeId' as 'The ID of the node to focus on' (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'specific node' adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Set focus on a specific node in Figma by selecting it and scrolling viewport to it'. It uses a specific verb ('set focus'), identifies the resource ('specific node in Figma'), and explains the mechanism (select + scroll), which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_selection or set_selections.

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 conveys when to use the tool by clarifying that it both selects a node and scrolls to it, which distinguishes it from selection-only tools like set_selections. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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