Remove a note from a goal by note UUID. Note ids come from goal-get (notes[].id). Deletes only the note — never touches acceptance criteria, evidence or blockers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goalId | Yes | UUID цели | |
| noteId | Yes | UUID заметки |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the operation only deletes the note and does not touch other related items, providing specific behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 concise sentences: first states the action and parameters, second clarifies scope. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.
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 this simple two-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter origin, and behavioral scope. Combined with annotations, it provides complete guidance for an AI agent.
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 with descriptions for both parameters. The description supplements by explaining that note ids come from goal-get, adding practical context for the noteId parameter without repeating schema details.
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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a resource ('note from a goal'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling removal tools (e.g., goal-remove-assumption) by stating it never touches acceptance criteria, evidence, or blockers. It also specifies the identifier format (note UUID) and where to obtain it (goal-get).
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 tells when to use the tool (when you have a note UUID from goal-get) and what it does not affect (acceptance criteria, evidence, blockers), implicitly guiding against using it for those purposes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools for other cases.
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.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes (goal-create vs goal-update vs goal-delete), but the evidence-related tools (goal-add-evidence-text, goal-attach-evidence, goal-request-upload) and note tools (goal-add-note) have overlapping concepts that require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. Overall, the detailed descriptions help resolve ambiguity, but a few tools could be easily confused.
The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a resource prefix (goal-create, goal-get, project-list, project-update). However, there are deviations like account-delete (noun-verb reversed), goal-todo, goal-summary, goal-tree, and goal-recent-unresolved that break the pattern. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
With 38 tools, this server has a very large surface area. Even for a complex planner with evidence management, the number exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. Many tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., goal-add-note and goal-add-evidence-text), and the size may overwhelm agents during tool selection.
The tool set provides complete coverage of the domain: full goal lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, list, tree, move, reorder, block), evidence management (attach, request upload, text evidence, remove), acceptance criteria (add, update, remove, request change, resolve escalation), assumptions (add, update, remove, suggest, attach evidence), blockers, notes, project management (CRUD, dependencies), and configuration settings. No critical gaps are apparent.