remove_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the destructive cascade (all exercises are removed with the block) but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether the session must exist, or what happens to an emptied session.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that communicates the action and scope with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions.

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 an unannotated destructive mutation with no output schema, the description omits too much: return value, failure behavior for a missing block_id, permissions, and confirmation expectations. The cascade note is helpful but insufficient on its own.

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 0% and the description never mentions block_id, how to obtain it, or whether it is a session-scoped identifier. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a whole block') and clarifies scope with the parenthetical '(all its exercises) from a session', which distinguishes it from remove_exercise. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 parenthetical scope implies when this tool is appropriate (removing an entire block rather than a single exercise), but the description never states alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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