Delete Content Block

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which already communicate that this is a non-idempotent mutation. The description 'Remove a block' aligns with these annotations without contradiction. While the description doesn't add much beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of irreversible consequences or dependent data), it doesn't contradict them either, and the destructive nature is clearly labeled in the 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 a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise. However, it is slightly under-specified — a bit more detail about the dryRun parameter or the parameters' relationship would be warranted while keeping it concise. Still, for the core purpose statement, there is zero waste.

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 operation with no output schema and zero parameter-format documentation, the description is under-equipped. It doesn't explain what dryRun does, how blockId relates to the page structure, whether deletion cascades, or what happens to the page after removal. The annotations help signal destructiveness but the description doesn't add the operational context an agent needs to safely invoke a destructive tool.

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 carries the full burden for parameter documentation. However, the description provides no information about what portalRef, pageRef, blockId mean or how they relate. The dryRun boolean parameter is entirely undocumented in the description — an agent would not know it provides a dry-run mode. This is a significant gap given zero coverage.

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 'Remove a block from a page' uses a specific verb (Remove) and clearly identifies the resource (block) and location (from a page). It distinguishes from siblings like add_content_block and update_content_block, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. Clear and unambiguous action.

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 implies usage context (removing blocks from pages) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing pageRef or existing block), and no exclusion cases. The parameter names and sibling context make usage reasonably inferable, but the description itself offers no explicit directional guidance.

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