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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds value beyond that: it confirms the note is 'removed for good' (irreversibility), offers a recovery path ('they can add a corrected one with note_about_me'), and imposes an authorization constraint ('Only for a clear request from the person'). It is consistent with the annotations and adds useful context.

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 front-loaded sentences with no significant waste. Minor redundancy between the title/personified opener and the more literal second sentence, but the recovery path and the `say` pointer each earn their 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, non-idempotent delete with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description covers irreversibility, authorization, and a recovery alternative, which is solid. However, it leaves the sole `id` parameter unexplained and does not describe what confirmation or return signal accompanies the deletion.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, so the description carries the burden of explaining it. It only implies that a specific note is selected ('one of the notes') but never explains how the `id` identifies that note, adds no format/source detail, and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description gives a specific verb+resource ('Delete one of the notes Job Spotter keeps about the person') and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling note_about_me, which is used to add a corrected note. The opening 'Forget a note about the person' is somewhat personified/cryptic, but the following sentence resolves it. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from note-adding siblings.

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 trigger condition ('when they say it is wrong') and a gating rule ('Only for a clear request from the person'), and names the alternative note_about_me for the corrected-note path. No explicit when-not guidance, but the context is clear enough to route the agent.

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