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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses both the soft-delete nature and the destructive consequence. It could add detail on recoverability or permissions, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 short, front-loaded fragments deliver the essential action and warning without filler. Every word 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema delete operation, this is largely complete: it identifies what happens, the required input is visible in the schema, and the destructive risk is flagged. Minor details like restore behavior would improve it but are not essential.

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%, and the description says nothing about the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already shows. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 the specific operation ('soft-delete') and resource ('a note') clearly, distinguishing it from sibling tools like notes_update and notes_list. The destructive warning further sharpens the intent.

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?

The 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm first' instruction is an explicit, actionable guardrail, especially valuable because annotations are absent. It does not name alternatives, but for a simple delete operation the warning provides sufficient context for when to use it.

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