Add cards to an existing canvas

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so richly: preservation of existing content, placement to the right, theme-readable styling, group-box placement, connection reference resolution, app-mode side effects (immediate appearance, marked as yours, single Ctrl+Z undo, auto-save), and refusal semantics with error codes (OPEN_IN_APP, ACCESS_OFF, BLOCKED) where nothing is written. This is exactly the atomicity and side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 primary operation is front-loaded, but the middle sentence describing app mode ('the cards go to KLYPIX itself while it lets AI tools use it: they appear at once...') is run-on and awkwardly phrased. Dense single-paragraph structure makes the signal harder to extract than it should be.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, failure behavior, and the return value ('Returns the new card ids'). It is nearly complete for a 3-parameter mutation tool, though permission/auth prerequisites are only implied through app-state error codes.

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 67%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that connections may reference new cards by index/title or existing cards by title, and that a card tagged with a group lands in the titled box of that name. It reinforces but does not fully re-document the card fields.

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 (append) and resource (cards and optional connections to an existing v4 .klypix), plus the key distinguishing property that existing items and positions are preserved. This cleanly separates it from create_canvas without needing the schema.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to an EXISTING canvas and describes the two operating contexts (app mode when open in KLYPIX on Windows vs. project brains written as files). It does not explicitly name create_canvas as the alternative for new canvases, so the routing signal is implied rather than stated.

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