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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the deletion is irreversible ('Cannot be undone') and it affects the shared state seen by both partners. What it omits is the failure/return behavior (e.g., what happens with a stale id, whether a confirmation payload is returned).

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the action and scope come first, followed by the safety directive. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, that it is shared, and that confirmation is required. The only gap is the outcome on invalid or already-deleted ids, which is a minor omission at this complexity level.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single 'id' parameter, the schema already explains that it is the note id sourced from list-ideas. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Deletes') and a specific resource ('a note from the couple's ideas'), which cleanly separates it from add-idea and update-idea. The added scope detail 'for both partners' clarifies the blast radius of the action. It stops short of a full 5 because it does not explicitly contrast itself with the update sibling for agents unsure whether the user wants removal or editing.

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 a concrete procedural instruction ('confirm with the user first'), which is genuinely useful for a destructive operation. However, it gives no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus update-idea or list-ideas, and no preconditions such as verifying the id exists. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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