Chat with Canvora

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds that the conversation is stateful across messages and that the tool returns generation parameters requiring a confirm_generation step before anything is produced. That is real workflow context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about credit consumption or failure behavior for a non-idempotent, open-world call.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then exclusions, then workflow note, then compact examples. No filler sentences and each block carries distinct routing or behavioral information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does well to explain that generation parameters come back and must be reviewed before confirm_generation. It is nearly complete for the create flow, but leaves the conversation/workspace parameters and the cost implications unexplained.

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 0% and the description never explains the three parameters: message is only implied through examples, while workspace_id and conversation_id are completely undocumented. The statefulness sentence hints that conversations persist but never tells the agent to pass conversation_id to continue one, which is a significant gap.

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 ("Send a message to Canvora's AI visual creation assistant") and explicitly scopes it as the primary creation entry point, which separates it from get_generation, create_variation, localize_generation and export_visuals.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (describe text/URL/idea to create visuals) plus concrete when-NOT-to-use with each named sibling and the condition that selects it, including the tip to omit generation_id on get_generation for the latest result.

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