Delete specific canvas elements by ID, or clear the entire board using all:true. Arrows bound to deleted elements are detached automatically.
Delete elements by id (arrows bound to them are detached), or everything with all:true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Clear the whole board | |
| ids | No | Element ids |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing a side effect — 'arrows bound to them are detached' — but it omits whether deletion is permanent/undoable, what happens to ids that don't exist, and what the response contains.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary mode and appends the alternative, with zero wasted words.
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 destructive, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description is only partially adequate: it covers the two modes and one side effect but leaves the safety profile (permanence, recovery, required permissions) unaddressed.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates them ('by id', 'all:true') without adding format, ordering, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (canvas elements/board) with both operating modes spelled out ('by id' vs 'all:true'). It is clearly distinguishable from read/draw/search siblings by the verb alone, though it never names a sibling boundary explicitly.
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?
The two modes are described ('Delete elements by id ... or everything with all:true'), which implies when each parameter applies, but there is no guidance on when to prefer targeted deletion over clearing the board, and no warning about irreversibility or confirmation before use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.