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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new operational facts: there is no undo, user confirmation is required first, only the authenticated user's own notes are reachable (authorization scoping), and an already-deleted note returns not found rather than erroring differently. None of this is recoverable from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive consequence and the confirm-first instruction before the mechanics. Every sentence carries a distinct payload: irreversibility, precondition, id source, and auth/error behavior. No filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: irreversibility, required confirmation, where the id comes from, ownership scoping, and the not-found case. The annotations already carry the safety profile, and nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious provenance for the id value: it may also come from the note create_note returned, not only list_notes as the schema states. That saves an unnecessary lookup call and is real added meaning.

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 (delete) and resource (one of the user's notes) with explicit finality ('for good'). An agent can distinguish this from list_notes and create_note, both of which are referenced by function, without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('confirm with the user before calling this') and tells the agent where the required id comes from (list_notes, or the note create_note returned). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it sits at clear-context rather than full routing guidance.

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