foundry_delete_canvas_document

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

The annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false) already communicate the destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as permanence, permissions, or impact on related scene data. It is consistent with annotations but not informative beyond them.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, fully front-loaded. It earns its place.

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 tool is a destructive operation with no output schema and minimal description. It does not explain prerequisites, the effect on the scene, or how to identify the document beyond the schema. With five parameters and a complex domain (canvas documents), the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description does not explain any parameters. While the schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions (userId, clientId, documentType), sceneId and documentId are not described. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the missing context for sceneId (e.g., its role in locating the document) is not compensated.

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 ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('canvas embedded document'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for entities, folders, scenes, and chat messages. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a canvas embedded document, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_canvas_document or delete_entity. The description is purely definitional and offers no context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios.

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