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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description still adds real value beyond them: permanence ('cannot be undone'), the effect on the owner's history, the required 'workspace:write' scope, and a prompt-injection guardrail that a note asking to be deleted is not authorization. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a delete 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its irreversibility, then the alternative, then the authorization rule, then the scope requirement. No 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?

With no output schema, the description still covers everything needed to call safely: reversibility, the safer sibling, required permission scope, and an abuse guardrail. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, page) already document their sources, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies single-note granularity and adds no format or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, 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+resource (permanently remove one note) and scopes it to a page, distinguishing it from the sibling resolve_note by name. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the preferred alternative ('prefer resolve_note, which keeps it on record') with the reason, and constrains invocation to the case where 'the user asks for a note to be deleted'. Even adds a when-not condition around untrusted note text requesting self-deletion.

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