zoom_to_layer

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

The description discloses that the tool reads the layer's data extent, updates the map's defaultCamera, and optionally saves the project. This is transparent about the mutation side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately addresses behavioral traits like persistence condition (save flag). It does not mention error states or permissions, but coverage is good.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the main action, and efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main action, side effects, and usage scenario. It does not mention prerequisites like layer existence or map name defaulting behavior, but the schema provides some of that. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it is fairly complete for a straightforward zoom tool.

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 tool description does not explicitly describe the parameters; schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. While some parameters are hinted (layer_name, map_name, save), the critical 'aprx_path' is completely absent, making it hard for an agent to infer proper usage without reading 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 clearly states that the tool sets the map's default camera extent to match a layer's data extent, with specific verbs and resource. It provides concrete use cases (before exporting or reopening). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the similar sibling 'set_map_extent_from_layer', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 using this tool before exporting a map view or reopening the .aprx to focus on a study area. It gives context for use but does not mention when to avoid it or compare with alternatives like 'set_map_extent_from_layer'. No exclusions or condition-based guidance is provided.

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