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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so permanence is partly redundant; however, 'Cannot be undone' reinforces irreversibility and 'explicit approval' adds a confirmation requirement not present in the annotations. Beyond that, nothing is said about failure modes or whether dependent blocks are affected.

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, with the destructive nature and approval precondition front-loaded and zero 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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers permanence and the approval gate. It could add what happens when the block or dashboard does not exist, but nothing essential for invoking it 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented as UUIDs, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about the blockId/dashboardId relationship or scoping requirements, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Permanently remove one block'), which is immediately distinguishable from report_add_block and report_update_block. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'after explicit approval' gives a real precondition for calling, but there is no guidance on when to choose removal versus, say, updating a block, and no mention of error behavior for nonexistent blocks.

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