Permanently remove a file attachment from one of your personal notes (personal notes only). This action is irreversible. Required: note_id (integer), file_id (integer, from notes-get response).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | File ID from notes-get response (required) | |
| note_id | Yes | Note ID (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Remove a file attachment from a note."New value: +"Permanently remove a file attachment from a note."Input schema / properties / file_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"File ID (from notes-get response)"New value: +"File ID from notes-get response (required)"Input schema / properties / note_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Note ID"New value: +"Note ID (required)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true; description adds 'irreversible' and 'personal notes only', but does not detail error behavior or effects on other data.
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 sentences, front-loaded with main action, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys core 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 simple destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers essentials. Lacks error handling details but sufficient for basic invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and description repeats parameter info, adding minimal extra context beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 clearly specifies the action (permanently remove a file attachment) and the resource (personal notes only), distinguishing it from sibling tools like files-attach or files-get_download_url.
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 description states required parameters and that file_id comes from notes-get response, but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.