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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the operationally critical detail that a missing blockId yields success-with-no-change while an unknown cell errors — a silent no-op an agent must know about. It also warns 'No dry run' and describes what the response carries (contentBudget used/available).

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?

Front-loads what is deleted and what survives, then prerequisite, then the sibling alternative, then return shape. Roughly five dense sentences with no restatement of the name or filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, prerequisite lookup, the silent-failure case, absence of dry run, and the response payload. Nothing an agent needs before calling it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so per-parameter docs are already covered; the description still adds meaning by telling the agent where blockId comes from and by explaining the divergent failure semantics of cellId vs blockId. expectedProjectId's project-override behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Deletes ONE content block (list, text, actions or links)') and immediately bounds the scope: entries inside the block go, the block itself and its other content blocks stay. That distinguishes it cleanly from delete_cell and from update_content_block without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('read the block ids with get_cell_details first') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('To remove a single entry rather than the whole content block, send the remaining entries with update_content_block'). No inference required.

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