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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the side effect (remaining blocks re-serialized, plain-text body regenerated) and the freshness constraint (ids are position-based, re-read after mutations). This is helpful operational detail, though it doesn't mention permissions or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter source, then the side effect and id stability warning. Every sentence 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, parameter sourcing, and critical side effects. It omits error cases (e.g., invalid block_id) and permission requirements, but is largely complete 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents template_id (UUID) and block_id (e.g., blk-0). The description adds meaning by specifying the source of block_id ('from meisa_get_template_blocks call') and clarifying that ids are position-based and stable, which helps the agent understand the identifier's semantics.

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 (Remove) and resource (a single block from a template), and distinguishes itself from siblings like meisa_delete_template (whole template) and meisa_update_template_block. An agent can tell this apart from other deletion tools without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear guidance on the prerequisite: 'Pass the block_id from meisa_get_template_blocks call.' This tells the agent the workflow dependency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. meisa_update_template_block or what happens if the block is already deleted.

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