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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that it's a soft delete (recoverable) and explains the cascade behavior with continuations. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 with zero fluff: the main action is front-loaded, followed by the cascade caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 delete operation with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the key behaviors (soft delete, cascade) adequately. The schema handles parameter details, and the output schema covers return format, so nothing critical 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?

The schema already documents cascade and if_updated_at, and the description enriches cascade by explaining its effect on threads. However, the id parameter lacks a schema description and the description doesn't address it, though it's self-explanatory. Coverage is 67%, so the description partially compensates.

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 a specific action: 'Move a note to the trash' — a distinct resource and operation. It also clarifies it's a soft delete, adding precision and differentiating it from a hard delete or other note mutations.

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 implies usage (when you want to delete a note) and provides a condition for cascade, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update or replace. The context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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