zoom

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false) and non-idempotence; the description's contribution is the wheel analogy, which usefully signals relative zoom compounding across calls and consistent with idempotentHint=false. It says nothing about what the call returns or whether view state persists, which are relevant for a view-mutating tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and backed by a compact analogy; there is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

All four parameters are optional with defaults and no output schema exists, so the bar is modest, but with three similarly named zoom siblings the definition should still say what this one does that they don't and whether the view change is visible/persistent. Those gaps keep it at minimum-viable.

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 75% and the schema documents each parameter thoroughly, including factor semantics ('2 = twice as close') and the px/world enum. The description's 'around a point' loosely reinforces the anchor parameter but adds no format or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (zoom in or out) and the anchor concept (around a point), with a concrete analogy ('like the mouse wheel over that spot') that makes the relative-scaling behavior clear. It does not distinguish itself from the siblings zoom_window, zoom_extents, or zoom_to, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which zoom variant applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the three zoom siblings or pan. The mouse-wheel analogy implies interactive, incremental zooming, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.

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