present_canvas

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds that the workflow is not modified and that the operation targets live canvas state. However, it does not disclose how the selection is changed (replace vs add), what happens with invalid refs, or the effect of fit_view.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes a useful constraint about not modifying the workflow. Every word earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a relatively simple 4-parameter tool with strong safety annotations, but it leaves some semantics implicit, especially selection behavior and fit_view. Without an output schema, the description also does not indicate what the agent should expect after 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only provides the overall intent and does not map canvas_id, refs, selection, or fit_view to concrete meanings. The enum values 'replace' and 'add' are left for the agent to infer from their names.

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 names a specific action ('Select and optionally fit native items') and a specific resource ('live ComfyUI canvas'), and it explicitly scopes the operation as not modifying the workflow. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apply_canvas_patch (which modifies) and inspect_canvas (which reads).

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 conveys when to use the tool: for selection and view-fitting on a live canvas while keeping the workflow unchanged. It gives a clear exclusion ('without modifying the workflow'), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state cases where inspect_canvas or apply_canvas_patch should be preferred.

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