create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the creation action and return value, but does not address potential side effects, persistence, or prerequisites. Given the tool creates a new canvas, this is reasonably transparent but not exhaustive.

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 just two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 explains the purpose and return value (canvas ID and hex grid), which is essential since no output schema is provided. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema. For a simple creation tool, this is nearly complete, though it could mention persistence or lack thereof.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (fill, width, height, palette), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Create a new blank canvas for drawing') with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the return value (canvas ID and hex grid), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, inspect, or pixel that operate on existing canvases.

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 implies use when needing a new canvas, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., tilemap, compose, character). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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