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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does: irreversibility ("It cannot be undone"), a cascade side effect on attached files, an authorization rule (author, manager, account owner; anyone else refused), and a batch-size constraint ("One note at a time"). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then consequences, then permissions. The colon appositive ("the files it carried with it: a note left on the wrong thread...") is slightly tangled, but no sentence is 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers side effects, irreversibility, and authz. Only the return/confirmation behavior is unstated, a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there with provenance hints (get_conversation, list_conversations). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Deletes an internal note from a thread") with an extra scope disclosure that the files attached to the note are deleted too. It is unmistakable against siblings like update_note or add_note.

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 concrete when-to-use cases ("a note left on the wrong thread, or one that is no longer true") and names the alternative for the common near-miss case: "to fix a word, update_note keeps the note." The boundary between delete and update is explicit.

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