Remove an unwanted Slack canvas by providing its ID. Deletes the specified canvas from your workspace, requiring the canvases:write permission.
Delete a canvas. Requires canvases:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canvas_id | Yes | Canvas ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the required scope but does not mention that deletion is likely permanent, what side effects occur (e.g., removing associated access or sections), or any error/idempotency behavior. 'Delete' implies destruction, but the description adds little beyond the tool's name.
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 short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is stated succinctly.
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 essentials are present: action, resource, required scope, and the schema fully covers the one parameter. However, the description omits permanence and side-effect information, which is notable for a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema.
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 schema already documents canvas_id as 'Canvas ID to delete' with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a canvas.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_message or delete_canvas_access by object type.
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 description provides the prerequisite auth scope ('canvases:write scope') but gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Deletion is a standalone operation with no close sibling, so usage is largely implied by the name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.