Apply a patterned or textured geometric background to a canvas artboard using preset patterns like dots, grid, or circuit, with an optional base color.
Applies a patterned or textured geometric background to the canvas artboard.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bgColor | No | Custom background base color (hex) | |
| patternKey | Yes | Pattern preset identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the pattern replaces an existing background, whether the operation is reversible (history_undo), or whether patternKey must originate from assets_list_patterns — all relevant for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though extremely sparse given the tool's role in a family of background-setting siblings.
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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still omits the relationship to canvas_set_background/canvas_set_gradient and where pattern keys come from, which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.
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%, so both parameters (bgColor hex, patternKey enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter — no syntax hints, no note that bgColor is optional base color beneath the pattern. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource: 'Applies a patterned or textured geometric background to the canvas artboard.' An agent can tell it sets a pattern-based background. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings canvas_set_background or canvas_set_gradient, which all touch the same surface.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent is not told when to choose a pattern over canvas_set_background or canvas_set_gradient, nor that valid pattern keys are discoverable via assets_list_patterns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.