Permanently remove a diagram and all its content from a CanvasKeep workspace using its diagram UUID. Use when you need irreversible deletion.
Permanently delete a diagram and its content. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagram_id | Yes | The diagram UUID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discharges the most important part: the operation is permanent, irreversibly destroys the diagram and its content. It omits secondary traits such as required permissions, behavior when the diagram_id does not exist, or whether deletion cascades to shares/links.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the destructive consequence front-loaded in the first sentence and the irreversibility warning second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing signal.
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 single-required-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials an agent must know before calling it. It falls just short of complete by not addressing failure modes (unknown or already-deleted diagram_id) or authorization requirements.
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 100% for the single parameter ('The diagram UUID to delete'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing for the parameter beyond the baseline; per the rubric this is the standard 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (diagram) plus the scope of destruction ('and its content'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like update_diagram, create_diagram, or get_diagram_scene without opening any schema.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. It never says to prefer update_diagram when content should be cleared without removing the diagram, nor does it state prerequisites such as ownership or permissions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.