set_camera_zoom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'explicitly sets' the zoom, implying a direct override of the current state, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it persists, affects all views, or requires any permissions). The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key information. It includes concrete examples and avoids unnecessary words, making it highly concise and 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 two-parameter setter with full schema coverage, the description covers the primary zoom parameter but omits any mention of the optional 'fileId' or how it behaves when omitted. It also lacks routing to the sibling 'zoom_to_fit', leaving the description incomplete for a tool that has a clear alternative.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'canvas' context and example percentages, but the schema already provides similar examples. It does not clarify the optional 'fileId' parameter beyond what the schema states, so it adds marginal value.

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 states a specific verb ('sets') and a clear resource ('canvas zoom percentage') with concrete examples. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'zoom_to_fit' by emphasizing an explicit percentage rather than fitting to content, but it does not name the alternative directly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'zoom_to_fit' or 'pan_to_node'. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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