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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it clarifies the delete is LOGICAL (row retained), discloses the auth/permission requirements, and explains the restore-by-add_note side effect. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 core action, then prerequisites, side effect, and structured 入力/出力 blocks. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 having no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ ok, mode: "deleted"|"not_found" }), plus auth and side-effect context. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100% – both content_id and ref_path are documented in the schema, including the ID format constraint. The description only restates that both are required, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. 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+resource: logical deletion of an ADL node's humanNote, with the exact mechanism (is_deleted=1). It also names the sibling add_note and describes the restore relationship, so an agent can distinguish it from get_notes/add_note without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: login required, editor or admin permission. It also implies the when-to-use case via the add_note restoration note. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when…' exclusion, so it falls short of a 5.

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