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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial nuance the annotations cannot express: a live note goes to Trash and is restorable, while a note already in Trash is permanently deleted. It also prescribes a confirmation protocol before the irreversible call. It stops short of covering authorization needs or what the dry-run result contains, so not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the trigger, then the consequence, then the safety protocol. No filler and every clause carries actionable information.

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, non-idempotent, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies exactly what's missing: what gets destroyed vs. trashed, the sibling to avoid, and the confirm-before-delete workflow. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 the schema already documents dry_run's two-phase workflow and that id comes from connections_notes_search. The description's guidance ('name the note to the member', call dry_run first) largely restates the dry_run field description, adding only minor emphasis rather than new meaning, so the 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 and resource (delete a note) and immediately scopes it to notes the member already has, explicitly excluding to-dos and pointing at the to-do tools. An agent can distinguish this from connections_todo_delete or connections_note_update without reading 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 the triggering condition ('when the member asks to delete or remove a note'), the negative case ('does not delete a to-do (use the to-do tools)'), and a concrete procedure: dry_run true first, name the note, confirm, then real delete. Nothing is left to inference.

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