add_canvas_edge

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description adds little beyond the obvious action of adding an edge. It does not disclose what happens if the canvas or nodes do not exist, whether this modifies the canvas file, or how existing data is affected.

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 concise sentence and easy to parse, but it is informationally thin. 'Full property support' adds length without meaningful substance, and the critical parameter context is missing.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level descriptions, this is too sparse. An agent cannot determine edge endpoint semantics, node identifier requirements, or valid property values. It is barely adequate for selecting the tool, not for invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for nine parameters. It offers no explanation of canvas_path, from_node, to_node, from_side/to_side, from_end/to_end, color, or label. 'Full property support' does not convey the meaning or format of any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('edge between two canvas nodes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_canvas_node and update_canvas_edge. The phrase 'full property support' hints at feature completeness, though it is vague about which properties are supported.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus update_canvas_edge or remove_canvas_edges. The name and description imply creating a new edge, but the description does not state when this is the right choice or when an alternative is preferred.

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