Delete Excalidraw canvas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that deletion requires exact path and revision confirmation, which is meaningful safety-related context for a destructive operation. It stops short of stating that deletion is irreversible or what happens when the base revision does not match, but the core destructive nature is clear.

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 tightly written sentence that leads with the action and includes the most important safety precondition. There is no filler, redundancy, or restating of obvious schema details.

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 tool with five required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, one sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain behavior on revision mismatch, the role of mutationId, or how this tool relates to replace_canvas and delete_project. It provides a foundation but leaves critical operational context unstated.

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 describes projectPath, canvasPath, and confirmCanvasPath, but it leaves mutationId and baseRevision undocumented in the schema. The description adds a useful hint about 'revision confirmation' and 'exact path,' but it does not explain mutationId's purpose, and with only 60% schema coverage a destructive 5-parameter tool needs more parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Deletes') and a specific resource ('a canvas'), which is further narrowed by the title to an Excalidraw canvas. It also distinguishes this from sibling deletion tools like delete_project by targeting the canvas resource, not a project.

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 conveys a clear precondition: deletion should happen only 'after exact path and revision confirmation.' However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer delete_canvas over related sibling tools such as replace_canvas, duplicate_canvas, or delete_project, leaving the alternative-routing largely to the agent.

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