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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it confirms irreversibility ("It cannot be undone"), notes that the activity log retains the deleted text, and explains that a repeat call after deletion returns success rather than an error. That retry-after-delete semantics is exactly the behavior an agent needs and is not derivable from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the destructive action and its irreversibility, then the retry contract. Slight redundancy between "outright, as the note's Delete does" and "It cannot be undone," but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: permanence, audit retention, and idempotent retry behavior. It leaves out authority/permission requirements and what happens to note-scoped metadata, which keeps it short of complete.

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 only 33% — client_id and noteId have no descriptions in either the schema or the description, and their relationship (a note scoped under a contact) is never explained. The only parameter the description touches is idempotency_key, and its retry meaning is already largely captured by the schema description; little net meaning is added for the two undocumented UUIDs.

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 and resource ("Deletes a note from a contact's card") and clarifies the semantics with "outright, as the note's Delete does." It is distinguishable from siblings like add_client_note or pin_client_note, though it never names an alternative for contrast.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the removal path for an existing note, and the retry guidance ("Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying") is actionable. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative (e.g., pinning or editing instead of deleting).

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