Remove Block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important behavioral trait: deletion cascades to all touching connections. It omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and what happens if the block does not exist or is a required endpoint.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and with a single parameter and simple structure the description covers the essential destructive semantics. The main residual gap is identifying the block correctly by 'name', which is left entirely to the schema.

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 for the single 'name' parameter, and it says nothing about it — not whether it is a block name vs. an ID, its uniqueness scope, or its format. The one substantive detail (cascade) is about effects, not the parameter.

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?

Clear specific verb + resource ('Remove a block') with an added scope qualifier ('and every connection touching it') that distinguishes it from the sibling 'disconnect', which removes a single connection. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative, so it's clear rather than fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer 'disconnect' (targeted edge removal) over this cascading removal. An agent must infer the choice from the sibling name alone.

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