propose_delete_block

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

The word 'Stage' indicates the operation is not immediate and likely part of a draft workflow, which is a valuable behavioral disclosure given that annotations are absent. However, it does not explain the consequences of staging (e.g., that the deletion won't take effect until applied), any side effects on child elements, or whether the action is reversible. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It includes only essential details (block types) and avoids redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description lacks crucial context for a staging mutation: how the staged deletion interacts with child blocks, whether the deletion is part of a change set that must be applied, and how errors or conflicts are surfaced. Combined with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the description is not sufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently in varied scenarios.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining each parameter's meaning. It implicitly clarifies that 'element_id' identifies a block of the listed types, but it provides no explanation for 'path' or 'doc_hash' and their roles in locating or validating the block. Two of three parameters remain undocumented, leaving the agent to guess.

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 a specific action ('Stage deleting') applied to a specific resource ('one whole block') and enumerates the valid block types (heading, paragraph, item or table). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_replace_text and propose_insert_block, which perform different operations on blocks.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios that favor deletion over replacement or insertion, nor any conditions where this tool should not be used (e.g., when only part of a block should be deleted). Relying on inference from the tool name alone is insufficient.

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