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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping the deletion precisely: it removes only the note and never touches acceptance criteria, evidence, or blockers. This adds value 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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important clarification about scope and note ID provenance is immediately useful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, this description is complete: it states the action, the parameter source, and what it intentionally does not affect. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no critical behavioral gap remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by explaining that noteId comes from goal-get's notes[].id field, which helps an agent obtain the correct value rather than guessing.

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 and resource: 'Remove a note from a goal by note UUID.' It clearly differentiates from sibling removal tools by stating it 'never touches acceptance criteria, evidence or blockers.'

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 clear usage context, including where note IDs come from ('goal-get (notes[].id)') and an explicit statement of what this tool does not affect. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of fully explicit when-to-use-this-versus-that guidance.

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