Publish a Canva email design as a draft campaign.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description would need to add context such as side effects or auth needs to earn credit. It adds nothing, and notably never mentions the schema's confirm gate ('Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action'), which is critical safety behavior for a destructive, non-idempotent call.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no filler, which satisfies the 'no waste' test. But for a 9-parameter, destructive, open-world tool, one sentence is under-scaled rather than appropriately sized; nothing is front-loaded that an agent actually needs.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, a nested payload object, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description leaves essentially every operational question unanswered: required confirmation, ID/URL sources, error behavior, and return value. It is not close to sufficient for this complexity.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters, including an undocumented nested payload object and bare fields like title, page_id, bundle_url, campaign_id and design_token, so the description is required to compensate. It supplies zero parameter meaning, not even the distinction between payload and payload_file or the title/account semantics.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance of any kind. The phrase 'draft campaign' faintly implies this does not send mail, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over publish_studio_email or get_canva_design_state.

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