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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context about the authority model (ownership-governed by market creator wallet, no scope needed) and the eligibility restriction on which updates can be removed. It says nothing about irreversibility, required wallet proof/nonce, or idempotency despite the annotations declaring non-idempotency alongside a retry key in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and its ownership constraint front-loaded before the eligibility rule. Every clause carries information.

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 an 8-parameter, destructive, proof-signed mutation with an output schema, the description covers the crucial authorization and eligibility model, which is the main non-obvious aspect. It leaves signing/nonce and retry behavior entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at 88% coverage but leaves a small gap for such a high-stakes operation.

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 88%, so the schema already documents id, chainId, walletAddress, proofNonce, walletSignature, signatureTimestamp, and idempotencyKey. The description only adds the implicit mapping of 'market creator wallet' to the walletAddress parameter; it does not clarify the auth-proof parameters or the retry semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Delete'), a specific resource ('persistent canvas updates'), and a scope limit ('your own ... from a market you created'). The verb alone separates it from the sibling post/list canvas tools, so the agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: the caller must be the market creator wallet, and only updates posted by that same wallet are eligible. It does not name an alternative path (e.g., listing updates first to obtain the id) or state explicitly when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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