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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description adds the useful irreversibility note ("Permanently", "cannot be undone"). It still says nothing about what happens when no note matches, when both id and title are supplied, or whether any confirmation step exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the destructive warning is appended without padding. 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 two-parameter tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description covers the operation, the lookup keys, and irreversibility. Remaining gaps (no-match behavior, handling of both keys, confirmation requirements) are minor given there is no output schema to explain.

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% and both parameters are optional with no required fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase "by id or exact title" does imply an either/or selection, which is marginal added meaning over the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 (note in the knowledge base) plus the two lookup keys, so it is unambiguous against kb_create_note, kb_get_note, and kb_update_note. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with one, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

"by id or exact title" tells the agent which lookup keys are accepted, and "cannot be undone" signals this is the irreversible path, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from kb_update_note for soft edits. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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