Add Excalidraw canvas asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool imports an image but does not mention that it modifies a canvas, how baseRevision protects against conflicts, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the core action. It could be slightly clearer, but there is no wasted wording.

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 tool with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the role of baseRevision, mutationId semantics, behavior on conflicting revisions, and what the caller should expect after a successful import.

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 60%, with canvasPath, sourcePath, and projectPath already documented. The description's 'raster image' and 'current Workspace' phrases mostly restate schema details. It adds no meaningful information about mutationId or baseRevision, both of which are undocumented in the schema.

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 ('imports') and identifies the resource ('one bounded local raster image') and source scope ('current Workspace'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools and 'bounded' is left unexplained.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when to prefer it over related sibling tools like push_canvas, replace_canvas, or remove_unused_assets, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the need for a baseRevision.

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