bdesign_canvas_apply

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

The description explains incremental behavior and place_card semantics, but relies on annotations for idempotency and destructive hints. It does not describe what happens on failure, revision mismatches, or partial application, though annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 concise, containing only two focused sentences without redundant information or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description is far too sparse for the tool's complexity: no output schema, no parameter explanations, no error handling context, and no mention of how operations are committed or validated. It covers only one narrow usage scenario (place_card) and leaves most operational context unexplained.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any parameters such as commandId, projectId, operations, idempotencyKey, or expectedRevision. Given the large and complex operations schema, this is a significant gap.

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 applies incremental Canvas operations and distinguishes it from raw document replacement, which is not exposed. It also provides a concrete example (place_card) that clarifies its purpose relative to similar canvas tools.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for when to use place_card (newly connected nodes) and explains that later user drag positions remain untouched unless place_card is called again. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear.

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