canvas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or the format of the created canvas. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic creation.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it incomplete for a creation tool with multiple inputs. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall completeness is limited.

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%, meaning all 5 parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'nodes', 'edges', 'title', 'folder', or 'project', failing to compensate for the schema gap. For example, it doesn't explain what 'nodes' and 'edges' should contain or how 'folder' paths are structured.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('Obsidian canvas file') with a purpose ('to visualize concepts and connections'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_memory_project' or 'write_note' that might also create files, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_memory_project' or 'write_note', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for visualization tasks but lacks explicit context for distinguishing from other creation tools in the server.

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