remove_canvas_edges

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the action. It does not mention that edges are permanently deleted, whether the operation can be undone, or any permission requirements. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add any useful behavioral detail.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple operation, though it could have been slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. Front-loading is adequate.

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 operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the format of edge_ids (e.g., comma-separated, JSON array) or how the parameters relate. Given the low schema coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves an agent uncertain about how to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. However, it does not clarify that canvas_path identifies the canvas and edge_ids specifies which edges to remove. The phrase 'by ID' is vague and does not map clearly to the parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description provides no added meaning.

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 ('remove') and resource ('edges from a canvas'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_canvas_edge or update_canvas_edge. The phrase 'by ID' is slightly ambiguous—it could refer to the canvas or the edges—but the overall purpose is clear enough.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like remove_canvas_nodes and update_canvas_edge, but the description gives no context about when removing edges is appropriate or what distinguishes this from similar operations. Usage must be inferred solely from the name.

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