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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses soft deletion with 30-day server retention and that child tasks survive the delete, both non-obvious side effects. It omits permissions/authorization requirements, idempotency, and behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the safety constraint last. Every sentence 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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema is adequately covered on retention and cascade behavior, but leaves the required id parameter undocumented and doesn't state what a successful delete returns or what errors look like. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 50%: the workspace parameter is well documented in the schema, but 'id' has no description anywhere. The tool description adds nothing about the id's type, format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Delete a note') in the first sentence, immediately distinguishing it from append_to_note, update_note, and move_note. It does not name the obvious counterpart restore_note, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Only delete when the user asked to' is an explicit gating condition that prevents unrequested destructive actions. It stops short of naming alternatives (restore_note for undoing, archive-style flows), so it sits at clear-context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives.

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