Delete App Widget

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which the description's 'Remove' verb is consistent with but merely restates. The description doesn't add behavioral context beyond the annotation: no mention of whether removal is reversible, whether related config/installation is affected, whether it cascades to dependent data, or what happens if the block is referenced elsewhere. With a destructive operation and no output schema, it should disclose more.

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 sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action verb. It's appropriately terse given the simple operation. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of necessary information about the 0% schema coverage and behaviors, so while structurally tight, it under-serves.

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 tool with destructiveHint=true, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should carry substantially more weight. It doesn't explain the dryRun parameter's safety purpose, doesn't mention reversibility, and doesn't clarify what 'app-widget' means relative to the portal/page context given the large sibling toolset. This is a mutating, destructive operation with minimal guidance.

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. With 4 parameters (dryRun, blockId, pageRef, portalRef) at 0% coverage, the description adds nothing about what these parameters mean. Notably, the dryRun parameter could be a safety feature worth highlighting in a destructive tool, and that's completely absent. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.

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 an app-widget block from a page' uses a clear verb (Remove) with a specific resource (app-widget block) and location (from a page). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_content_block, delete_page, and uninstall_app, since 'widget' is specific terminology. Missing nuance is that it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools explicitly, but the widget terminology is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., widget must exist, page must exist), doesn't note whether blocks can be re-added afterward, and doesn't clarify how this differs from delete_content_block or update_widget. The sibling set includes several delete/update tools, so guidance on when one applies over another would be valuable but is entirely absent.

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