Remove all widgets from the canvas while keeping standup cards, with an optional undo to restore the last cleared widgets.
Remove every widget from the canvas (standup cards stay). The human can undo it from the canvas, or you can call clear_canvas with undo:true right after.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| undo | No | Restore the widgets removed by the last clear. |
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 behavioral burden and does well: it discloses destruction scope (all widgets), what is preserved (standup cards), and reversibility via two distinct undo routes. It omits permission/auth requirements and any effect on other collaborators, leaving modest gaps for a destructive operation.
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 scope and its exception front-loaded before the recovery guidance.
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-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly complete: it covers scope, exception, and reversibility. It does not mention what the call returns (e.g., count of removed widgets) or failure modes, which are the only remaining gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it clarifies that undo should be invoked 'right after' the clear, a temporal coupling the schema's 'last clear' wording only implies.
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 and resource ('Remove every widget from the canvas') plus an explicit scope exception ('standup cards stay'). This is distinguishable from the sibling remove_widget, which acts on a single widget, without opening either 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?
The bulk-clear use case is clear, and the description routes the agent to the recovery path (human undo or re-invoking with undo:true). It does not explicitly say when to prefer the sibling remove_widget for a single widget, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.