pan_to_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a smooth, view-only camera movement and does not imply data mutation. It could add an explicit note that this is non-destructive, but 'pans and centers the camera' is reasonably transparent.

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 no filler. It front-loads the action, then states the goal, making it easy to scan.

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 low-complexity camera tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. A minor gap is that it doesn't state what happens when fileId is omitted (e.g., current file), but the schema and overall simplicity keep this from being a serious omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'node or artboard' but does not add meaning beyond the schema; fileId semantics remain only 'Optional target file ID.'

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('pans and centers') with a clear resource ('Paper canvas camera') and target ('specific node or artboard'). It also states the purpose (letting the user see what the agent is working on), which separates it from camera tools like set_camera_zoom or zoom_to_fit.

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 phrase 'so the user can see what the agent is working on' gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the usage intent is clear enough for an agent.

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