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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing that deletion is irreversible, that the block source is destroyed and must be rewritten from nothing, that the operation is refused rather than forced when in use, and that the refusal response names the blocking pages/templates. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 irreversibility warning and the refusal condition are front-loaded and every sentence carries new information. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but nothing is padding.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the blocking condition, the non-recoverability, the confirmation requirement, and the prerequisite doc read. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (blockId, including its origin from list-blocks), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (delete) and resource (block) with scope — backend, filesystem, and site — which cleanly separates it from siblings like fabrement-delete-content or fabrement-delete-synced-pattern. An agent can identify it 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?

Explicit when-not conditions (refused while any page places it or a template uses it as header/footer), the remediation ('remove it there first'), the absence of any force override, and a required user confirmation before calling. It also names the prerequisite doc lookup, which is real routing guidance.

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