Show on screen

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: this only moves the camera and is not recorded as an undo step. It does not describe viewport persistence or whether zoom is retained, but the undo-history clarification is genuinely useful for an agent sequencing edits.

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 sentence with the action, the target, the trigger condition, and the exclusion clause, all front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested bbox object and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits what happens when no ids and no bbox are supplied (zero required parameters) and never addresses zoom. Adequate, but with visible gaps for a tool whose schema is entirely undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the ids-vs-rectangle either/or relationship that the schema leaves implicit, but it never mentions 'zoom' or the coordinate space/units of the bbox, leaving two of three parameters semantically thin.

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 and object ('Move hive's camera') plus the target ('given nodes (or rectangle) are visible'), which is far more precise than the generic title 'Show on screen'. It also pre-emptively differentiates itself from undo_last_change, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'use after creating something so the user sees it', and excludes one wrong candidate with 'Not an undo step.' It stops short of naming a full alternative (e.g. that this is viewport-only and not needed after updates or moves), so it lands just below the top tier.

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