addAutoZooms

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the grouping algorithm, exclusions, idempotency ('no zoom lands on one already there'), the result list, telemetry statuses (ok, no-sidecar, unavailable), and the caveat that 'added 0 is an answer, not a failure.'

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 dense but front-loaded and well-structured: it moves from purpose to algorithm to usage to results/telemetry to an edge-case caveat. Every sentence adds useful context, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it describes the return values and telemetry readings, covers edge cases like 'added 0', and gives clear usage context. The only gap is the misleading 'Takes no arguments' claim, which the schema corrects.

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 schema fully documents the optional projectId (100% coverage), but the description falsely says 'Takes no arguments.' This contradicts the schema and could mislead an agent about whether a projectId can be supplied.

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+resource ('Plan zooms... and add them') and explains the automatic mechanism ('clicks close in time and on screen share one zoom'). The reference to 'Automatic zooms' and the behavioral details distinguish it from manual zoom siblings like addZoom/addZooms.

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 explicit usage contexts: 'Use it after cutting or rearranging a project, or on one whose zooms were removed.' It does not name alternative tools (e.g., addZoom) or state when not to use it, but the automatic-vs-manual distinction is implicit.

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