Put a saved snapshot back on an Excalidraw canvas, and undo the restoration later because each revert is also saved as a snapshot.
Put a snapshot back on the canvas. This is itself snapshotted, so reverting a revert is possible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | Yes | Scene id, exact name, or a unique part of the name. Use list_scenes if unsure. | |
| snapshot | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious trait — the restore is itself snapshotted, making the operation reversible — but omits whether the current canvas state is overwritten/destroyed, whether prior unsaved work is lost, and whether any permission or confirmation is required.
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, the action front-loaded and the reversibility caveat second. No filler, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its reversibility but leaves the snapshot parameter undefined and the overwrite semantics of the target scene unaddressed. Adequate but visibly incomplete.
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 coverage is 50%: 'scene' is well documented in the schema (id, exact name, or partial name, with a pointer to list_scenes), but 'snapshot' has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description says 'a snapshot' but never clarifies whether the parameter is an id, name, or index, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Put a snapshot back on the canvas'), which clearly reads as the inverse of the sibling snapshot_scene. It identifies the operation without opening the schema, though it never names the sibling it complements or contrasts with, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 on when to use this versus list_history, snapshot_scene, or replace_scene, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer that a snapshot must already exist and that list_history is the discovery path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.