canvas_set_gradient

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the gradient replaces the existing background, how it interacts with canvas_set_background/canvas_set_pattern, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Only the preset enumeration adds context.

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 front-loaded sentences with the purpose stated first and parameter guidance second. Slightly redundant in re-listing the preset values that the enum already enumerates, but otherwise tight.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool with fully documented params, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should disclose how the gradient interacts with the other canvas background tools and whether it overwrites existing content. That gap leaves an agent uncertain.

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 each parameter already has a description plus an enum for preset, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the preset names and mentions colors/angle but adds no format or default details 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 ("Applies") and resource ("gradient to the canvas background"), which scopes it distinctly from layer_set_gradient and canvas_set_background. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the canvas-vs-layer 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 description implies usage by explaining that you can pass a preset or custom colors/angle, but never states when to choose this over canvas_set_background, canvas_set_pattern, or layer_set_gradient. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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