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

Far exceeds what the annotations convey: sandboxed static snapshot with no network/cookies/storage, no live window.ankra data, AI-generated-page notice, link-anyone access until expiry, 50 live pages per organisation, and user confirmation before going public. Idempotent-ish republish behavior (same URL, extended expiry) is also disclosed.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action, the required id, the version caveat, format restrictions, then the page behavior and limits. Long, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; only mild trimming is possible.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers what the agent needs to know about the result (public URL, permanence until expiry, republish semantics, quota) and all preconditions, formats, and approvals. Nothing material is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: artifact_id must be the value a canvas_present call in this conversation returned, and ttl_hours defaults to 7 days and caps at 30, which contextualises the 1–720 bounds.

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 (publish) and resource (canvas artifact presented via canvas_present) plus the outcome (public URL on the Ankra pages host) and the audience (someone with no Ankra account). It is clearly separable from canvas_present and unpublish_canvas.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (artifact_id returned by canvas_present), the inverse operation (Undo with unpublish_canvas), and a non-obvious exclusion: hand edits in the canvas panel are not published by this tool and must use the Publish button instead.

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