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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond them: it specifies that for already-published pages the edit saves an unpublished latest revision only, and that the live page should remain public. It also defines the required handoff behavior around page_publish and page_unpublish, which prevents accidental live deployment.

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 front-loaded with the core deletion action and organized around the most important constraints. It is somewhat long and repeats the publish-wait rule in different words, but every section still earns its place given the destructive nature of the tool.

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 not be described. The description covers the critical behavioral sequencing and side-effect context for a destructive tool, but the missing pageId and editToken parameter explanations leave a gap for correct invocation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains blockId as a stable identifier discoverable via page_get, but it never explains the required pageId parameter or the optional editToken parameter. Partial compensation for one of three parameters is insufficient at this coverage level.

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 and resource: 'Delete one block by stable blockId.' It clearly distinguishes this destructive operation from sibling tools like block_update, block_add, and block_reorder by specifying deletion of a single block. The added note about saving an unpublished revision for published pages further clarifies the exact scope.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call page_get first if unsure which blockId to remove. It also provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance and alternatives: do not call page_publish in the same turn, do not call page_unpublish, and wait for a separate user message before publishing. This is exactly the routing and exclusion information an agent needs.

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