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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: skip logic and piped variables become invalid, and failures surface at runtime rather than at deletion time. That downstream-effect disclosure is exactly what a destructive tool needs.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the destructive warning leads and the remediation step closes. Every sentence carries unique information.

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?

Covers safety, side effects, failure timing, and the required follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this destructive tool safely is missing, even without an output schema.

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% – both block_id and project_id are documented with sources ('from get_script', 'from list_projects'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (one block from a script), and crucially scopes it to a single block, distinguishing it from sibling mutators like delete_project or delete_response.

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?

Gives a clear post-condition action ('Always run validate_script afterwards') and warns of the failure mode, but does not contrast directly with update_block as an alternative for minor edits.

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