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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the per-author authorization check with its error message, and the side effect that 'Mentions on it are withdrawn.' It stops short of stating irreversibility, an undo path, or confirmation requirements.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the auth rule, then the side effect. Nothing repeats structured fields and no sentence is 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 one-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the definition covers action, permission boundary, error signal, and a downstream side effect. Missing only permanence/undo details and guidance on sourcing the note_id, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required string parameter, so the description carries the burden and does not explain what note_id is, its format, or how to obtain it (e.g., from read_conversation or search_messages). The only indirect hint is that the ID must refer to a note the user authored.

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 and resource ('Delete ... notes') plus scope ('one of the user's own notes'), which immediately separates it from add_note and update_note. An agent knows exactly what the call does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an authorization precondition ('Only the author can delete a note') and the exact failure behavior for the excluded case (a teammate's note returns 'not your note'). There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives sentence, but for a delete tool the precondition effectively provides that context.

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