Create Excalidraw canvas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only states that a canvas is created and opened. It does not mention that baseProjectRevision indicates optimistic concurrency, what happens if the canvas path already exists, or what the response is.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it immediately names the core action and scope.

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 mutation tool with four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of the two undocumented required parameters, any conflict behavior, and what a successful call returns.

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 documents projectPath and canvasPath, but the required mutationId and baseProjectRevision have no descriptions, and the tool description adds no parameter explanation. An agent cannot infer the purpose of the revision/mutation fields from the description.

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 ('creates and opens') and resource ('empty canvas') and scopes the action to 'one project.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_project, open_canvas, duplicate_canvas, and list_canvases by emphasizing an empty, newly-created canvas.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as replace_canvas, duplicate_canvas, or save_canvas_copy, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The only implied use case is needing a new empty canvas, which is left to inference.

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