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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful post-condition — the note is removed from pickup eligibility, not merely hidden — but says nothing about permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent, or what happens when the code does not match an existing note.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the effect stated immediately. Brevity is appropriate, though the space saved could have been spent on the parameter, so it is not maximally efficient.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with no output schema, the annotations carry most of the risk signal, but the definition leaves the only input unexplained and does not describe behavior on an invalid or already-deleted code (relevant despite idempotency). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% with one required parameter 'code', and the description never explains what that code is, where it comes from (presumably from a note created by leave_note or read via pick_up_note), or whether it identifies the note or a session/workspace. The description does not compensate for the schema 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 and resource ('Delete a private note') plus the resulting state ('no longer be picked up'), which distinguishes it from sibling leave_note and pick_up_note. Clear enough that an agent can tell it is not a retrieval or creation tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the 'can no longer be picked up' outcome, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to delete (e.g. vs. leaving the note to expire), and no reference to any alternative sibling tool.

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