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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real, non-redundant behavior: the post receives a revision and undo restores the block's position but not its row. That recovery semantics is exactly the kind of detail annotations cannot carry. It does not cover failure behavior for a nonexistent uuid, so it is not exhaustive.

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 substantive sentences and a fragment; nothing is padded, but the opening fragment 'On one site of the account, named in site' is awkwardly dangling and delays the actual action. The recovery caveat is well-placed at the end.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed and what undo recovers, which is the core need. It leaves the uuid unidentified and says nothing about what happens if the block or site does not exist, so gaps remain.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and largely does not. The site parameter merely restates what the schema already says (the site to work on), and uuid is left entirely undefined in both schema and description — the agent must infer it is the block's identifier.

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: it removes a block from its post and deletes its row, which distinguishes it from update_block, create_block, and post-level siblings like delete_post. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named (e.g. update_block to blank a block versus deleting it outright). The purpose is implied by the verb, but an agent gets no decision criteria.

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