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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the meaningful context that the change is publicly visible and immediate, which is beyond the annotation data and helps the agent understand the impact. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a prerequisite and an impact statement. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already defined. The description covers purpose, prerequisite, and impact. It is complete for a simple deletion operation, though it could have mentioned the siteId parameter to be fully thorough.

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?

The description explains blockId well (how to obtain it, examples), but siteId is not mentioned at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for both parameters. It partially covers blockId but leaves siteId undefined, which is a gap for an optional parameter.

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 one block'), the resource ('bio page'), and the identifier ('blockId'), with concrete examples (finished tour date, retired product link). It unambiguously distinguishes this from the sibling tools add_mini_site_block and update_mini_site_block.

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 instructs the agent to call get_mini_site first to find the blockId, providing a clear prerequisite. The examples ('finished tour date', 'retired product link') signal when this tool is appropriate, and the destructive nature is obvious from the verb.

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