delete_block

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: deletion cascades to the next-chain by default, and confirmation is mandatory. This gives an agent a clearer picture of the operation's side effects.

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?

One short sentence delivers the core action, the default cascading behavior, and the required confirmation flag. Every element earns its place and is front-loaded with the primary verb and object.

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 destructive 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the deletion scope and the confirmation requirement. However, it omits the role of path and target, the effect of setting deleteChildren=false, and what happens after deletion, leaving gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially addresses parameters. It clarifies confirm (must be true) and deleteChildren indirectly via 'next-chain by default', but leaves path, target, and blockId unexplained despite the schema offering no descriptions for them.

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 and resource: 'Delete a block' and adds the key scoping detail that the next-chain is deleted by default. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_block, move_block, and set_block_field without requiring schema inspection.

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 makes the confirmation prerequisite explicit ('Requires confirm:true') and implies the destructive use case, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides enough context to understand the operation, but no exclusion or comparison guidance.

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