foundry_update_canvas_document

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false is consistent with 'update', but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. It does not clarify whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 sentence with no redundancy, but it is so minimal that it becomes under-specification rather than conciseness. It essentially restates the tool name without providing operational value, so it fails to earn 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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks update semantics, data format guidance, error behavior, and any relationship to sibling tools, forcing the agent to guess or infer critical details.

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 adds no parameter semantics whatsoever. The critical 'data' parameter is only described in the schema as 'JSON object accepted by Foundry', which is vague, and the description does not explain how documentType, documentId, and data interact. Schema coverage is 67%, but the main payload remains underspecified.

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 states a specific action (update) and resource (one canvas embedded document), which clearly differentiates it from the create/delete/get siblings. However, it lacks any additional context about document types or scope, though the schema enum provides that.

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 given on when to use this tool versus create_canvas_documents, delete_canvas_document, or get_canvas_documents. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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