Remove a block from a board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: 'Are.na can't delete a block entity (405)', 'deletes its CONNECTION to the board', and 'the block itself is not destroyed.' This is excellent transparency for a mutation tool, though it doesn't cover response behavior or error cases.

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 exactly three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the action with an example, clarify the behavioral nuance, and provide parameter instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It covers what, when, how, and the critical limitation. Minor omissions like return value or auth are not essential for this operation.

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 schema already has 100% coverage for both params, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance by pointing out that block_id should come from arena_get_channel and that channel_slug is the board slug, reinforcing the schema and providing cross-tool context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove a block from a channel', and provides a concrete use case ('a piece that no longer fits the brief'). It distinguishes itself from related operations by clarifying that it deletes the connection, not the block entity itself, which is critical given the tool name.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use ('when a piece no longer fits the brief') and explicitly instructs how to invoke: 'Pass the board slug and the block_id from arena_get_channel.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, it implicitly differentiates from entity deletion by mentioning the 405 limitation.

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