canva_open_desktop

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 hints at launch-vs-focus semantics and that the app must be installed locally, but says nothing about failure behavior when the app is missing, whether any OS permissions are needed, or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the parameter condition follows. Slightly terse rather than padded, which is appropriate here.

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 simple one-parameter local-integration tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the local-install prerequisite and what a caller observes on success or failure.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lone design_id parameter. It does establish that the parameter is optional and changes the target design, but 'targets that design' is vague about whether it opens, focuses, or navigates to that design.

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 states a specific verb pair (launch/focus) and a concrete resource (the Canva Desktop application installed on this PC), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like canva_open_editor or desktop_open_url, but an agent can still tell what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over canva_open_editor, desktop_open_url, or studio_open, which are the plausible alternatives in the sibling list. The only conditional given ('if design_id is supplied') describes parameter behavior, not tool selection.

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