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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds traits the annotations cannot express: the deletion is currently irreversible ("cannot be restored from fenbs yet") and it "Needs permission to change tasks." It also prescribes a disclosure protocol (state the note and reason first). It stops short of describing behavior on a nonexistent id or repeated calls, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and its condition; the identifier sourcing and the update alternative follow in priority order. The final clauses are dense and slightly run-on ("...so when a note is only out of date, update it instead; say which note you are deleting and why before you do it"), but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted, how to identify it, irreversibility, the permission requirement, and the alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already document their source and exact-match semantics, including the duplicate-title refusal. The description restates the id-or-title choice and its provenance (fenbs_list_context_notes) without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ("Delete a context note") plus the qualifying condition ("wrong or no longer applies"), which cleanly separates it from fenbs_delete_decision, fenbs_delete_lesson, and fenbs_delete_project. An agent can identify the target artifact and intent without opening the schema.

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?

Names the sibling that supplies the identifier (fenbs_list_context_notes) and states the when-not case explicitly: "when a note is only out of date, update it instead." That routes the agent to the update path rather than deletion, which is exactly the decision this tool needs to gate.

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