Remove unused Excalidraw canvas assets

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal two important traits: the operation is atomic and removes only files not referenced by live image elements. However, it does not state that deletion is permanent, whether the canvas file is modified, whether there are rollback possibilities, or what happens if the base revision is stale. For a destructive operation, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 worded sentence with no filler. The key behavioral qualifiers 'atomically' and 'not referenced by any live image element' are front-loaded, giving an agent the core semantics immediately. It is concise without being under-specified for its stated 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and four required parameters, the overall description is too sparse to fully enable correct invocation. An agent is not told what baseRevision and mutationId semantically mean, whether the operation is reversible, what the success/failure response looks like, or what happens to the canvas after removal. This is insufficient for a destructive tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain mutationId or baseRevision at all, nor does it clarify how they affect the removal operation. While canvasPath and projectPath are documented in the schema, the missing semantic context for the other two required parameters is a significant deficiency.

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 and resource: it removes files not referenced by live image elements. This clearly communicates the tool's narrow scope and distinguishes it from asset-adding or canvas-editing siblings, even without naming them explicitly. It is not merely restating the title.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_canvas_asset, replace_canvas, or apply_canvas_changes. It does not mention preconditions, such as needing a stable base revision or an existing project/canvas, nor does it say when cleanup should or should not be attempted.

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