notion_delete_block

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

The parenthetical is a genuine behavioral disclosure: deletion is implemented as setting in_trash=true, implying soft-delete semantics rather than permanent destruction. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and leaves side effects such as child blocks, permissions, reversibility, and error behavior unstateed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence: verb, object, then the valuable in_trash qualifier. Every word earns its place and there is zero wasted text.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool, the schema covers parameters and the description covers the core operation. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, there is no guidance on prerequisites, side effects, or error cases, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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%: block_id and extract are both documented, and the extract description even explains default and 'none' response behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the word 'block,' so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the exact verb and resource ('Deletes a block') and adds the non-obvious qualifier 'sets in_trash: true,' which clarifies this is a soft-delete/trash operation. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that retrieve, update, create, or append blocks.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no reference to alternatives among the siblings. The only usage signal is the verb itself, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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