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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that ownership is required. This is meaningful behavioral context for a destructive tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and empty filler.

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 simple destructive tool with only two parameters, the description covers what is deleted, the ownership restriction, and the permanence effect. It could also describe failure behavior or return value, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 schema already describes the 'agent' parameter, and 'id' is a required UUID whose purpose is fairly obvious from the tool name and description. However, the description does not explicitly state that 'id' must be the note to delete, so it adds only limited semantic value beyond the schema.

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 is specific: it identifies the action (delete), the resource (the caller's own note), and the consequence (permanent removal). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_article.

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 provides solid context for when this tool applies—deleting a note—and it adds a clear permission constraint: only the user's own notes can be deleted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative delete-related tools or state when not to use it.

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