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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that the deletion is recoverable, specifies the restore mechanism (notes-restore), mentions the purge date (30 days), and indicates that attachments and history are affected. This goes beyond annotations and provides full behavioral context.

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main action and recoverability. Every sentence adds value—scope, constraints, and recovery differentiation—with no wasted words.

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 delete tool with one required param and no output schema, the description covers the action, recoverability, usage scope, and constraints. It fully informs the agent of what the tool does and its side effects.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage (one parameter 'id' with a description). The description only restates that 'id (integer)' is required, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. According to rules, baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the action 'Move a note to Trash' on the specific resource 'note'. It explicitly distinguishes from permanent deletion by noting recoverability, and it differentiates from sibling 'notes-restore' by describing the delete action.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (personal and team notes with editor role) and when not to use (cannot delete notes in a shared container). It also mentions the alternative 'notes-restore' for undoing a delete, giving clear when-to and when-not-to usage.

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