Saves a frozen copy of the current board to your library so any later chat can find it with canvas_search. Reusing the same name overwrites the saved copy.
Save a frozen copy of this board to the user's library so any later chat can find it with canvas_search. The same name again overwrites it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name to save under (default: the board title) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key mutation trait: reusing the same name overwrites the existing saved copy. 'Frozen copy' also signals the snapshot is immutable with respect to later board edits. Missing are permission requirements, what is returned on success, and whether overwriting is silent.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with the overwrite caveat second. No filler.
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 one-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It could still say what the save returns or whether the live board is unaffected, but nothing essential is absent.
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% and the single parameter already documents the default (board title). The description adds only the name-as-identity detail via the overwrite sentence — useful but thin beyond 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?
States a specific verb (save a frozen copy) and resource (this board) plus where it lands (the user's library), which cleanly separates it from write-alike siblings such as canvas_export or canvas_delete. It even names the retrieval counterpart, canvas_search.
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?
Implies the usage scenario clearly ('so any later chat can find it with canvas_search'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate rather than canvas_export. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., whether a board must be open first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.