canvas_planner_overrides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain semantics beyond that: the results are user-authored marks with two distinct states (done vs. dismissed), which tells the agent what the payload actually represents. It says nothing about result volume or pagination behavior, but the schema covers paging.

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 core definition front-loaded and the sibling relationship placed second where it belongs. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what the list contains, the two mark states, and where the underlying items come from. Minor gap is that the shape/fields of a 'mark' record aren't hinted at, but with annotations covering safety and the schema covering paging, nothing critical is 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% — both 'raw' and 'page' are fully documented in the input schema, including the bookmark format for paging. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 ('List') and resource ('the marks you set on planner items'), then defines the resource concretely as checked-off/dismissed statuses in Canvas's to-do list. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from canvas_planner, which supplies the items themselves, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

The second sentence gives clear routing context by naming canvas_planner as the source of the underlying items, implying this tool is the companion for status/override data. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer canvas_todo instead), so the boundary with that sibling is left to inference.

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