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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: an approval gate via confirmed=true, a mention of credit use, and the important operational fact that writes are never retried automatically — the latter is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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: the action first, then the safety gate, then the retry caveat. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most decision-critical constraint (approval) is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive nature, the approval requirement, and retry behavior. It doesn't state whether deletion is reversible or what happens to the parent prospect, but the essentials for safe invocation are present.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the nested path object's id and note_id are already documented inside the schema, and confirmed carries its own description. The description reinforces that confirmed must be true only after approval, which is a slight semantic addition beyond the schema wording, but it adds no format or example detail. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Delete prospect note") that maps unambiguously to the note-level endpoint, distinguishing it from dealmachine_patch_prospects_id_notes_note_id and the GET variant. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but the resource specificity is high enough that selection is easy.

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?

It states the precondition for invoking (user approval plus confirmed=true), which is meaningful usage guidance for a destructive tool. It does not say when to prefer editing a note over deleting one, or mention related operations, so usage context is implied rather than framed against alternatives.

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