Clean Up Modellix Canvas Uploads

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

Annotations already indicate destructive (destructiveHint=true) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true) behavior. The description adds contextual detail about 'temporary' inputs and 'retry' semantics, which complements the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 a single, dense sentence with no redundant words. It conveys purpose and context efficiently.

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 tool has a clear purpose and an output schema, but the description omits parameter explanations and explicit confirmation/safety details. While annotations and schema cover some aspects, the 0% parameter coverage leaves gaps in understanding what operationId refers to and why confirmCleanup is required. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 the description does not mention operationId or confirmCleanup at all. The schema only provides structural constraints (length, const) without semantic meaning. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 action ('Retry deletion') and the target resource ('temporary File API inputs retained after terminal image tasks'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_canvas_project or delete_canvas_page.

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 implies when to use this tool: when temporary File API inputs are retained after terminal image tasks and need retry deletion. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, though the context is sufficient for differentiation.

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