bdesign_canvas_continue_from_tail

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it creates a canvas node and returns a prompt that maps @Image1 as the first frame. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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-loaded: the first sentence states the action, and the second gives essential output-handling guidance. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and mutation-oriented annotations, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke it correctly. It omits parameter roles, how the returned prompt should be used beyond the @Image1 note, and what destructive effects may occur.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are nine parameters. The description names no input parameters and explains none of them, leaving assetId, modelId, position, projectId, sourceCardId, and others completely undocumented. The @Image1 reference is about the output, not parameter meaning.

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 operation: extract a video's tail frame, place it on Canvas, and create a continuation generation node. This distinguishes it from similar frame-extraction and canvas tools by naming the concrete workflow and the continuation-generation outcome.

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 intended use case is implied by the tool name and description: continuing from the tail of a video. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like bdesign_asset_extract_frame or bdesign_generation_submit, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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