maket_canvas

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses coordinate units (mm), lists paper and screen sizes, and notes that unspecified fields persist. However, it does not describe side effects of changing format/orientation after content is added, auth requirements, or potential errors. More detail on mutation behavior would improve transparency.

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 with a 'When to use' header, unit note, size list, and persistence note. Each sentence adds value, though the paper size enumeration is somewhat lengthy. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with essential instructions.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers usage, parameter behavior, units, and default behavior (unchanged fields). It lacks return value or error information, but for a setting tool this is acceptable. The description is largely complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value: it explains coordinate system, lists paper/screen dimensions, suggests background using var(--charte-color-bg), and clarifies margins affect layout verdict. This goes beyond simply restating schema descriptions.

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 verb 'set or update' and the resource 'canvas (physical frame) of a document', specifying the exact aspects: format, orientation, background, margins. It distinguishes usage from sibling tools by noting it should be called before adding content or when switching formats.

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 explicitly provides 'When to use:' guidance, mentioning scenarios like setting canvas for a fresh doc or switching between formats. It implies partial updates with 'Unspecified fields keep their current value', but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternative tools for similar purposes.

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