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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true, so the description adds value by disclosing the concrete consequences: 'apply all draft changes to the design, closes the editing transaction, and makes its transaction_id invalid.' It also mentions return behavior ('Returns confirmation'). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use case, approval requirement, and operational effect. Front-loaded with the main action. No redundancy or filler.

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 destructive mutation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage gating, behavioral consequences, and return confirmation. It could mention error scenarios (e.g., already-closed transaction) but that is a minor omission given the clarity provided.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters: transaction_id is 'Exact ID of the active editing transaction' and user_intent is described. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond restating that the transaction is active and that the id becomes invalid—context already implied by the schema's phrasing. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('make permanent'), resource ('all draft changes in an active Canva editing transaction'), and scope ('text, layout, or media updates'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling cancel-editing-transaction by describing the permanent save action and from start-editing-transaction by implying an existing transaction.

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 instructs when to use it ('to save a completed set of edits') and provides a mandatory precondition: 'Show the user a preview of the design and obtain their explicit approval before calling this tool.' This gives the agent clear decision and action guidance, including a human-in-the-loop step.

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