Save Canvas Asset

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting the content-addressed nature (implied idempotency) and the input constraints ('bounded bitmap or sanitized SVG'), which enhances understanding beyond the structured data. 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 focused sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every phrase adds meaning.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the 0% schema coverage and lack of parameter details leave gaps about the exact encoding requirements and optionality, while the phrase 'sanitized SVG' is ambiguous as to whether sanitization is performed or assumed. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely hints at input types via 'bounded bitmap or sanitized SVG' and does not explain fileName's role or how dataBase64 should be encoded. The schema carries the burden, but the description adds minimal parameter-level 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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and identifies the exact resource ('bounded bitmap or sanitized SVG' as a 'content-addressed project asset'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_canvas_project by focusing on asset-level storage rather than project-level.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for storing assets intended for later Canvas or image-task use, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for whole projects, use save_canvas_project'. Thus it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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