Delete a Notion block by its block ID to remove outdated or unwanted content from a page. Use it to clean up pages or programmatically manage block-level content.
Delete a block
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block_id | Yes | Block ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether deletion is destructive/permanent, not whether child blocks are also removed, not whether the block must be empty, and not what (if anything) is returned. For a delete mutation this is a major gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the parameter surface, though the extreme brevity is also what leaves behavioral gaps, so it is not a 5.
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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and cascade/permanence questions unaddressed, the definition is not complete enough to call safely. An agent cannot tell whether this is reversible or what side effects accompany it.
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 100% for the single block_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured data does the work.
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?
States a clear verb and resource ('Delete a block'), and the tool name plus sibling set (notion_update_block, notion_get_block) makes the intended operation unambiguous. However, the description adds no differentiation beyond the name itself and doesn't clarify scope (e.g., whether child blocks go with it).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus notion_update_block (which can archive/detach) or how it relates to append/get children. No prerequisites, no warning that deletion is irreversible or requires the block to exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.