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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description neither confirms nor explains what deleting actually does to the note (is it recoverable via reopen_note? does it cascade?). It also says nothing about permissions or confirmation requirements for a removal operation, so it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. Nothing in it is untrue or filler, so it is not penalized heavily here.

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 mutation/removal tool with no output schema, one undocumented required parameter, and ambiguous recoverability semantics, the definition is far too thin. An agent could call it, but would not know whether the action is irreversible or how to recover.

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 description mentions no parameters at all. With schema coverage at 50%, noteId is completely undocumented while projectId has a schema description; the description does nothing to compensate, leaving the agent to guess what a note identifier is and where to obtain one (list_notes).

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?

"Delete a note" is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, so it adds no information beyond the identifier. It also gives no signal distinguishing it from the many note-related siblings (update_note, resolve_note, reopen_note, list_notes, add_note), which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as resolve_note or reopen_note. The agent is left to infer that this is the permanent-style removal path versus sibling operations that change a note's state.

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