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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains the operation is recoverable, that body/attachments/history are retained, the default 30-day purge window, the role requirement, and the shared-container restriction. This is exactly the contextual nuance a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loads the recoverability constraint and permission scope, which is the right ordering. Slightly redundant — the recoverability idea is stated twice ('restorable with notes-restore' and 'can be undone with notes-restore'), costing a sentence.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema, all an agent needs is present: what it does, recovery path, purge window, role/auth constraints, and the blocked case. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries full meaning. The description merely restates 'Required: id (integer)' and adds no format or source guidance, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Move a note to Trash') and scopes it to personal vs authorized team workspaces. The recoverable-not-erase framing immediately distinguishes it from any hard-delete expectation and it names the sibling (notes-restore) it pairs with.

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?

Explicitly states when it works ('your own personal notes and team notes where you have the editor role') and when it does not ('You cannot delete notes in a shared container (only the owner can)'). It also names the alternative for undoing — notes-restore — with the purge-date window.

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