Delete Capacities block

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: nested child blocks are deleted with the parent, implying cascade deletion. It also adds a precautionary note to read structured content first. This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then a crucial caution about nested deletions. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is highly scannable and effective.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description provides sufficient context for a delete tool. It explains the core action, the cascade deletion behavior, and offers a safety guideline. It could optionally mention response behavior, but the output schema likely covers that, so no significant gap exists.

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 baseline is 3. The description references 'object ID and block ID' which maps to the 'id' and 'blockId' parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. The apiToken parameter is not mentioned, but the schema already covers it thoroughly.

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 'Delete one existing Capacities block by object ID and block ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'delete_object' by targeting blocks, and the title reinforces this. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'read structured content first and use only when the deletion is intentional.' It also highlights a key consequence ('Nested child blocks are deleted with their parent'), which helps the agent decide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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