canvas_create_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the result is blank and can have a background color; it says nothing about side effects on an existing canvas (replace vs. add page), permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and key attributes front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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 all four parameters documented in the schema and no output schema required, the description is minimally adequate for a creation tool. However, absent annotations, it omits side-effect and return behavior that an agent would need to call it confidently alongside canvas_set_dimensions and canvas_set_background.

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 100%, with each parameter documented (width/height in pixels, isTransparent, hex/RGBA backgroundColor), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description references dimensions and background color but adds no format or interaction detail (e.g. isTransparent overriding backgroundColor) beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (creates) and resource (new blank canvas) with the two key attributes it configures (dimensions, background color). It implicitly distinguishes itself from canvas_set_dimensions and canvas_set_background by emphasizing 'new blank,' but never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts the create-vs-modify distinction.

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 word 'new' implies this is for initializing a fresh canvas, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like canvas_load_template (start from a template) or canvas_set_dimensions/canvas_set_background (modify an existing one). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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