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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing cascade behavior (continuations must be cleared first), that other blocks and audience are preserved, and that no launch occurs — real side-effect context for a mutation.

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?

Four terse sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the constraint and side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the main behavioral concerns (cascade, preserved state, no launch). It falls short only on clarifying the secondary parameters (testId, construction) for a 4-param tool.

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%; the description only maps 'by ID' to blockId and says nothing about testId, the construction array, or the ignored expectedRevision. Since coverage is not high, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented half, leaving this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 (Remove) and resource (draft block) plus the identifier mechanism (by ID). The 'draft block' scope distinguishes it from siblings like update_test_block and add_test_block, so an agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

The description gives a prerequisite ('Clear dependent browser continuations first') and a scope constraint, but never names when to use this over alternatives such as update_test_block or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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