pixelart_import_canvas

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

Annotations already exist but are generic. The description adds that it loads an image and returns canvas_id, width, height, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file format limits, memory usage, or error handling).

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 seven lines, includes Args and Returns sections, and is succinct without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (single param with two sub-properties, output exists), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., file existence) but is generally complete.

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 schema descriptions already cover the parameters ('Unique id to store...' and 'Local path...'). The description lists them briefly in Args but adds no new details beyond the schema. It does include the return format, which is not in the input schema.

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 it loads an existing image file into a new canvas, distinguishing it from creating a blank canvas by specifying it's for continuing an existing sprite. The verb 'import' accurately reflects the action.

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?

It provides explicit context: 'Use this to continue editing a sprite that already exists... instead of redrawing it from a blank canvas.' This explains when to use this tool vs. creating a new canvas, but does not mention other sibling tools like pixelart_duplicate_canvas.

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