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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation/safety profile. The description adds the 'soft' qualifier, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not explain what soft-delete entails (e.g., recoverability, visibility in list_notes), so the behavioral disclosure remains thin.

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 three words, front-loaded with the action and qualifier, and contains no filler. For a one-parameter tool this size is appropriate; every word earns its place.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter and the annotations cover the destructive nature, so the core invocation is complete. However, the description does not clarify the observable effect of a soft delete (e.g., whether the note disappears from lists or can be restored), which matters given there is no output schema.

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 fully documents note_id as 'ID of the note to delete' with 100% coverage, so the description has no additional parameter burden. Per the baseline rule, the schema doing the heavy lifting yields a score of 3.

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 states a specific action ('soft-delete') and a clear resource ('a note'), and the 'soft' qualifier distinguishes it from a hard-delete operation. This is enough to tell it apart from the other delete_* siblings, which target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or name alternatives; it only implies that it should be used when a note needs to be removed without permanent deletion. The note resource is unambiguous among siblings, so the lack of explicit routing is a gap but not a fatal one.

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