check_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the returned issue shape (kind, page, slideId, node, path), the exact remediation fix:true performs (shrink overflow text, snap near-aligned elements), that changes are persisted in place, and the returned documentId/version plus fixed/snapped details. It stops short of stating whether the check itself is read-only without fix, or any permission/rate context.

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?

Purpose and the issue taxonomy are front-loaded, and the fix/return behavior follows logically. The long enumeration of defect kinds is dense but each item contributes to recognition; it is slightly overlong for a single paragraph but not padded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains both the return shape and the fix-path return values, which is what an agent needs. The only real gap is the absence of guidance distinguishing this from validate_document/inspect_document/render_document.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: fix's mutation-and-save behavior, in-place update via documentId returning documentId/version, and the fixed/snapped result semantics. The document/documentPath alternative sourcing is covered in schema but the fix consequences are not.

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 (check) and resource (freeform canvas document layout) and enumerates the exact defect classes it detects, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-name siblings like validate_document, inspect_document, or render_document, which an agent would need to differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (use it to find layout problems on a rendered document, set fix:true to repair), and it offers documentId/document/documentPath as input alternatives. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-validate_document/inspect_document routing, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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