Remove a specific block from a page by its instance ID. Works for content and layout blocks, only after user confirmation.
Remove a specific block from a page by its instance id. Works for content and layout blocks. Only call after the user confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageId | No | Page id | |
| blockId | No | Block instance id (UUID) to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.73.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool works on content and layout blocks and that it should only be called after user confirmation, implying a destructive action. However, it does not explicitly state that removal is permanent or describe side effects, permissions, or the response format. It adds some behavioral context but leaves important gaps.
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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, and the scope and usage condition are stated concisely. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.
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 simplicity of the operation and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its scope, and a key usage precondition. It does not mention potential error conditions or reversibility, but these are less critical for a straightforward removal tool. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention permanence or side effects.
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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (pageId and blockId), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states; it merely reiterates that removal is by instance id. It does not compensate for any missing schema details, as none are missing.
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 (remove), the resource (a block from a page), and the mechanism (by instance id). It also specifies the scope (content and layout blocks), which distinguishes it from other block operations like add or update. The purpose is unambiguous and sets it apart from sibling tools.
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 a clear usage condition: 'Only call after the user confirms.' This signals that the operation requires explicit user consent, which is a critical guideline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the sibling set, the context is implied. The precondition is a useful and specific guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.