set_map_extent_from_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes the map frame camera and can save the .aprx project if save=true. It does not mention destructive effects or permissions, but the behavior is relatively safe and clearly described.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second gives context/use case, and the third explains side effects. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the essential: what it does, when to use it, and what side effects (project saving) occur. It could mention that the layer must be in the map connected to the frame, but the schema already notes that. Overall complete.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters (aprx_path, layer_name, layout_name, map_frame, save). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the mention of 'save=true' and 'Use None to target the first...' which are already covered. Since schema coverage is effectively high, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the verb (set), resource (layout map frame extent), and source (named layer). It uses specific API methods (mf.getLayerExtent, mf.camera.setExtent) and gives use cases (dataset, study area, boundary, analysis result). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zoom_to_layer or set_map_scale.

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 advises use before exporting a layout and explains the purpose (focus on a dataset, etc.). It also explains the save parameter's effect (temporary vs permanent change). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the context is clear enough.

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