delete_block_document

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 states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., impact on related resources), or error conditions (e.g., invalid ID handling). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, errors), usage context, or return value specifics beyond a generic 'Confirmation message'. For a mutation tool with zero structured support, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it specifies that 'block_document_id' is a 'UUID', which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensation is effective, though it doesn't detail UUID format constraints (e.g., version).

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a block document by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_block_document' by specifying deletion rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_deployment', 'delete_flow') in terms of what a 'block document' is, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the block document ID from a prior operation), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_block_document' for verification. Without such context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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