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

Annotations only flag destructive behavior, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: deletion cascades to mentions, notes bypass the recycle bin, the action cannot be undone, only the author may perform it, and the agent must never self-confirm. These go well beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint provide.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and cascade effect; the second covers consequences and the human-in-the-loop guardrail. Every clause 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 destructive note-deletion tool, the description covers permanence, mention cascade, author-only authorization, no-recycle-bin behavior, and the critical human-confirmation rule. With no output schema, omitting return-value details is acceptable. An agent has the key information needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 confirm, confirmation_phrase, and entity_type with meaningful descriptions, covering 75% of parameters. The description reinforces the human-confirmation constraint but does not add new meaning for note_id or entity_type beyond what the schema states. Note_id still lacks an explicit semantic description in both schema and description.

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?

Description opens with 'PERMANENTLY delete one of YOUR OWN notes together with its mentions,' specifying a clear verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from related note tools and restore tools by emphasizing irreversibility and author-only deletion.

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 clearly communicates preconditions: only the author may delete, deletion is permanent, and human confirmation is required. It implies when not to use the tool (e.g., for recycle-bin recovery or for others' notes), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as notes_update or restore operations.

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