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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that subsequent blocks shift up by one, which is not conveyed by the annotations or schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the main action and then provide the key behavioral effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 tool with a complete schema and annotations, the description covers the core behavior (remove block, shift subsequent blocks). It lacks edge-case information like out-of-bounds behavior, but the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the burden. It's nearly complete for this complexity level.

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 100%, with both postId and index already described clearly. The description reinforces the index semantics by mentioning 0-based indexing and the effect on subsequent blocks, but it doesn't add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Remove the block at the given index (0-based).' This is a specific verb+resource (remove+block) and distinguishes from sibling tools like append_post_block and replace_post_block by indicating removal vs. adding or replacing.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the verb 'remove,' but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like replace_post_block. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself offers no explicit guidance.

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