Delete block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the cascade behavior (children deleted, document-level deletion) that the name alone would not convey, but it never states that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether any auth or permission is required, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the destructive cascade warning front-loaded before the advisory prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral surprise (cascade deletion) and the recommended pre-check. The main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about permanence or recovery.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Block ID to delete'). The description's 'by ID' adds no format or source-of-ID information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Delete a block') and adds the non-obvious scope 'and its children', which an agent needs to know before calling. The additional note that deleting a document block removes the whole document further sharpens what the tool actually operates on.

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 recommends confirming the target via `get_document` or `search_notes` first, naming concrete siblings. It does not, however, say when not to use this tool (e.g. use `remove_document` instead for full-document removal) or distinguish it clearly from the parallel `remove_document` sibling.

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