upsert_artboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses upsert semantics, the returned artboard id, canvasWidth default and semantics, and the live canvas projection behavior. It omits edge cases such as behavior with a non-existent id or prerequisite project/page existence, but is otherwise substantive.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with zero filler: behavior first, key parameter parenthetical second, then return value and rendering note. Each sentence earns its place and no word is wasted.

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 7-parameter upsert with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers create/update, return value, and post-call rendering. It lacks failure-mode and precondition details, but these are not essential for basic correct invocation.

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 only 29%, but the description compensates by explaining the id create/update behavior, name/description as update fields, and canvasWidth in detail (default 1440, mobile values). PageId is implicitly clarified as the parent page from the opening sentence, and dir/projectId are already documented in the schema.

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 opens with a precise behavioral statement: no id creates an artboard under a page, while an id updates name/description. This clearly identifies the resource (artboard), the action (upsert), and differentiates it from sibling tools like upsert_page (page-level) and render_canvas (rendering).

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 description implicitly defines when to use the tool (create/update artboards) and explicitly tells the agent not to call render_canvas afterward because the canvas updates in real time. However, it does not explicitly compare against page-level or other artboard manipulation alternatives.

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