canvases_edit

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether editing is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens on failure. The single sentence provides no behavioral context, leaving the agent blind to important characteristics.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide essential information, thus not earning its place. A 2 indicates that brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with open-ended changes parameter, no annotations, and no output schema details), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits behavioral constraints, parameter semantics, return values, and error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema: it neither explains that 'canvas_id' identifies the target nor clarifies the expected structure of 'changes' (array of objects with free-form properties). An agent cannot infer proper parameter usage.

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 'Edit a canvas.' clearly identifies the verb (edit) and resource (canvas), distinguishing it from create/delete. However, it is a tautology—it restates the tool name without adding specificity about what editing entails (e.g., content vs. metadata). A score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., canvases_create, canvases_delete). The description lacks context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or alternatives, making it unhelpful for decision-making.

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