delete_block

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already informs the agent that the tool is destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as permanence, permissions required, or impact on related data. Thus, it offers no additional transparency.

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 extremely concise at two characters, but this brevity sacrifices meaningful content. Conciseness should be balanced with informativeness; here, it is under-specified.

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 simple nature of the tool (one required parameter, destructive annotation), the description is minimally adequate but does not convey that the ID can refer to blocks, documents, notebooks, or databases, which is important context provided only in the parameter description. The tool-level description fails to summarize this.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', including a pattern and description. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '删除块' is a direct translation of the name, essentially a tautology that adds no new information beyond what the name 'delete_block' already conveys. It does not specify what a block is or clarify the scope of deletion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_doc, remove_notebook, or the many other block manipulation tools. The agent receives no context about which delete operation is appropriate.

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