maket_canvas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a mutating action ('set or update'), explains the partial-update semantics ('Unspecified fields keep their current value'), and provides essential context like units ('Coordinates are in mm') and exact paper/screen dimensions. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the essential 'When to use' guidance, followed by concise lists of coordinate units, paper sizes, and screen sizes. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff. The use of explicit labels and line breaks makes it easily scannable for an AI agent.

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 (5 parameters, nested object, enums) and the rich schema descriptions, the tool description adds crucial context such as the tool's role in the document lifecycle, exact size mappings, and the critical 'unspecified fields keep current value' behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing an output schema.

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 already has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it provides exact dimensions for each paper size and screen size, clarifies that 'coordinates are in mm', and reinforces the partial-update behavior. This enriches the meaning of the 'format', 'margins', and other parameters, warranting a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'set or update the canvas (physical frame) of a document — format, orientation, background, margins.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes the canvas tool from sibling tools like maket_page or maket_doc by focusing on the physical frame. The phrase 'physical frame' and the inclusion of 'when switching a doc between formats' further clarify its unique role.

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 opens with 'When to use' and provides clear scenarios: 'Call this before adding content to a fresh doc, or when switching a doc between formats.' This gives explicit guidance on timing and intent, effectively differentiating from content-adding tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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