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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the status lifetime (until the next call or 10 minutes), the effect of 'done', visibility behavior via the 'live' return value, and that the note may be ignored on read-only connections. These are important behavioral details an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose and state meanings. The first sentence is somewhat dense with semicolons and parenthetical clauses, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given the simple three-parameter schema, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It also covers return semantics and read-only/visibility edge cases that would otherwise be 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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds useful meaning by explaining the states' intents and clarifying that 'done' removes the cursor, and it adds note behavior through 'noteIgnored' for read-only connections.

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 clearly states the tool's effect: it shows a cursor status with a chosen state and optional note, and 'done' removes the cursor. The available states and cursor-removal behavior make it distinguishable from diagram-editing siblings.

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 description implies usage through state meanings such as 'waiting (for the person’s answer)' and explains that 'done' removes the cursor. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as viewer_poll or get_canvas, nor does it state when not to use it.

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