adobe_create_canvas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully discloses fixed output traits (transparency, 72 ppi, sRGB) but says nothing about where the canvas is created, whether it opens a document window, or what happens if width/height exceed limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause (transparency, 72 ppi, sRGB, bit depth) conveys a real specification. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 creation tool with a required, entirely undocumented 'destination' parameter and no explanations in the schema, the description leaves a critical gap. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input contract is not self-sufficient.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. The 'default depth is 16-bit' note merely repeats the schema default, while the required 'destination' parameter is never explained, and width/height units and their 2880 cap are left to 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?

The description gives a concrete verb and resource ('Create a ... Photoshop canvas') and pins the output profile (transparent, 72 ppi, sRGB), which distinguishes it from siblings like adobe_place_image or adobe_add_rectangle. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the create-canvas purpose is unambiguous.

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 use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens after creation (e.g., whether the canvas becomes the active document). The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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