Delete Block

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds concrete effect details: removes descendants, unlinks from parent's sys:children by default, optionally prunes surface connectors referencing deleted ids. It also notes refusal of affine:page. This goes well beyond the annotation-level disclosure and sets clear expectations for 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?

The description is three short sentences: core action, key options, and exclusion. Each sentence is information-dense and earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently packs behavioral details.

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 5-parameter schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers deletion side effects, parameter behavior, and the key alternative. It leaves no critical ambiguity about what the tool does, when to use it, and what consequences to expect. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already described. The description enriches deleteChildren with the 'for re-parenting' use case and clarifies that pruneConnectors removes connectors referencing any deleted id. While the schema explains the flags, the description adds semantic context that helps an agent choose appropriate parameter values. This exceeds the baseline for high schema 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 opens with 'Delete a block by id', a specific verb+resource statement. It then details the deletion semantics (descendants, parent sys:children, connectors) and explicitly distinguishes from delete_doc by stating 'Refuses affine:page — use delete_doc for whole docs.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling delete 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 explicitly says 'use delete_doc for whole docs,' providing an exclusion and alternative. It also gives conditional usage guidance: setting deleteChildren=false for re-parenting, and pruneConnectors=true to also drop surface connectors. This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to adjust behavior for specific needs.

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