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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is already declared; the description adds substantial context beyond that — permanence, the two distinct dependency-based refusal conditions, the consequence of force:true (places render nothing), and that inner blocks survive. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, but the dependency semantics are unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the destructive nature and the resource, then layers preconditions. Some sentences are dense (nested em-dash clauses around force:true), but nearly every clause carries distinct behavioral information rather than 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-format detail is unnecessary, and the description still notes that refusal responses list the blocking placements. Combined with covered preconditions, force semantics, and the skill-doc prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 force param is documented in the schema, but the description adds real meaning beyond it by explaining the conditional effect ('those places then render nothing') rather than just 'delete even while records place it'. patternId is undescribed in both places, though it is an unambiguous identifier, so the gap is minor.

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 ('Delete a global block (synced pattern) PERMANENTLY'), and the parenthetical alias plus the permanence qualifier distinguish it from generic sibling deleters like delete-block and delete-template. An agent can identify the target and the irreversibility 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?

Explicitly covers when-not-to-use: refused while a template's header/footer uses it (routed to save-template first) and refused while any record places it (routed to removing placements or force:true). It also names the prerequisite call, get-skill-doc, to run before the first invocation. This is about as prescriptive as usage guidance gets.

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