add_canvas_node

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds the behavioral detail of auto-layout when position is omitted, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites, but for a simple add operation this is acceptable given the low bar set by annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the auto-layout detail is placed second, which is useful and efficient. Every sentence contributes information.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no enum constraints, the description is far too brief. It does not mention required fields (canvas_path, node_type), nor does it explain how to select node types and which fields are relevant for each. An agent would need to infer many parameter semantics from the schema alone, which is risky. The description is not complete enough to safely invoke this tool without additional knowledge.

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. It provides some context for x/y (auto-layout when omitted) and hints at node types, but it does not explain the meaning or usage of url, file, text, color, label, width, height, canvas_path, or node_type beyond the list in the first sentence. With 11 parameters and 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action (Add), the resource (a node to a canvas), and lists the node types (text/file/link/group). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_canvas_node and remove_canvas_nodes by using the verb 'Add', and the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Auto-layout when position omitted,' which provides a condition for behavior but not a clear routing guide. The differentiation from update/remove tools is implied by the name and verb, but no explicit 'use this for creation, use update for modification' guidance is given.

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