Delete Block

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('Delete'), the cascade effect for children blocks, and the return value ('Returns the list of deleted block IDs'). This covers the core behavior, though it doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency further.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter guidance and return value in subsequent sentences. Each sentence earns its place by adding value: defining the action, explaining a key parameter, and stating the output. No wasted words, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the destructive behavior and cascade effect, which is essential, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or the structure of the returned list. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, more context would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'cascade' parameter by explaining its effect ('to also delete all subsequent blocks with higher indent'), which is crucial beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of 'graph_id', 'document_id', or 'block_id', leaving those parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Delete a block by its ID') and resource ('block'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_folder' or 'delete_graph' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_block' or 'batch_update_blocks' in terms of destructive intent beyond the verb 'Delete'.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the 'cascade' parameter effect ('to also delete all subsequent blocks with higher indent'), which suggests when to use this option. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'delete_graph' or 'update_block' for partial modifications), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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