Patch canvas section

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, destructive flags), the description reveals additional behavioral traits: it is parallel-safe (only the targeted section is updated), requires canvas:write or canvas:admin permission, and explicitly mentions that playbook_id is a UUID/GUID. This provides a clear picture of the operation's side effects and safety.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that conveys all essential information without redundancy. It covers the purpose, usage, permissions, and parameter relationships, making it efficient and easy to read.

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?

The description addresses the tool's purpose, concurrency safety, permissions, related tools, and key parameter acquisition (section_id). Given that there is no output schema, it covers the necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, including potential pitfalls like needing to lock the section.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explicitly stating that section_id should be obtained from get_canvas_toc and that playbook_id is the target playbook's UUID/GUID. This contextual guidance enhances understanding of these parameters beyond 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 clearly states the tool edits a specific section of a canvas document, using the verb 'edit' and specifying the resource. It also distinguishes itself from write_canvas, which replaces the whole document.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use write_canvas only for full replacement, and get_canvas_toc to obtain section_id. It also advises locking the section in multi-agent scenarios, which clarifies the intended usage context.

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