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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the text and vector are removed immediately, and the 500-note lifetime quota slot is permanently consumed — a non-obvious consequence an agent would otherwise not anticipate. It omits error behavior for a wrong token or unknown note_id.

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?

Four very short sentences, front-loaded with the action and credential, then the destructive effect, then the quota caveat. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries 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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description covers credential requirements, effect scope and the irreversible quota cost. Only return-value shape and failure handling are absent, which are minor given the annotation coverage.

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 100% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, including where note_id and write_token come from and the hex patterns. The description only restates that the write token is needed, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema supplies, so 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete one note') scoped to a semantic search collection, with the required credential stated up front. An agent can distinguish it from add_semantic_search_notes or query_semantic_search by name and phrasing, though the description itself never references those siblings.

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: it is the removal counterpart to adding notes and requires the write token. However, there is no explicit statement of when to delete versus re-create a collection, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance (e.g. what to do if the note was already deleted).

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