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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), a side effect the annotations do not capture ('leaves the source picker'), and two server-side refusal preconditions with the tools that verify them. This is exactly the extra context destructiveHint alone cannot supply.

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 verb and object, followed by refusals and a Related line. Dense but every sentence carries information; the trailing 'Related:' list is the only mildly extraneous element.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the preconditions, irreversibility, and side effects an agent needs before invoking a destructive single-parameter tool. 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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's description already says 'The note's id from list_claims', which the tool description merely echoes. No new syntax, format, or sourcing detail is added, 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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and a narrowly-scoped resource (a pasted note, i.e. a source with type note), and explicitly excludes other source types. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_post, delete_assets, and delete_site without opening a 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 concrete when-not conditions: refusal while any claim quotes the note or brand profile evidence cites it, and states other source types cannot be deleted here. It points to list_claims and update_brand_profile as the places to check those conditions, but does not name where non-note sources are deleted.

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