Create a KLYPIX canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a side effect ('save it to the vault') and explains behavioral traits such as groups becoming titled boxes with stacked cards and boxes arranged left-to-right. It doesn't address overwrite behavior or response format, but the creation intent is unambiguous.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then adding user context and layout guidance. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and there is no repetition of schema field names or annotation data.

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 no output schema and five parameters, the description covers the main behavioral choice (groups vs loose grid), persistence, and the intended user experience. It omits return value and error/overwrite behavior, but those are secondary for a create operation and the input schema already documents all parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by advising card style ('Prefer short, titled cards (one idea each) connected by meaningful arrows') and by explaining the semantic difference between grouped and ungrouped cards, which maps to the `groups`, `group`, and `connections` parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new .klypix canvas from cards + connections and save it to the vault.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_to_canvas by emphasizing 'new' and 'save it to the vault,' and adds user context via 'The user opens it in the KLYPIX app (Canvas → Open).'

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?

It provides concrete guidance on when to use groups versus the loose grid: 'For anything a person reads IN ORDER — steps, phases, checklists, sections — put the cards in groups.' It explains the consequence of not grouping: 'the loose grid follows arrows, not reading order, and scatters a sequence.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'new' vs add distinction is clear enough.

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