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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to linked references, or any permission requirements; 'privacy-filtered project metadata' is too vague to be useful.

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?

The description is one short sentence but is syntactically garbled and confusing. 'Update hosted delete context note' obscures rather than clarifies, so the conciseness is not beneficial; the wording needs to be fixed and restructured to be useful.

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 a nested details object, four required parameters, and no output schema, this tool needs a much richer description. The current text gives no indication of return values, side effects on the project graph, how to compose the details object, or the implications of deletion, leaving the agent without essential information.

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%, and the description names none of the seven parameters, including required fields like projectId, noteId, idempotencyKey, and expectedVersion. It fails to explain their semantics, such as expectedVersion implying optimistic concurrency or idempotencyKey ensuring safe retries.

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 says 'Update hosted delete context note' rather than clearly stating it deletes a context note. The verb 'Update' conflicts with the tool name 'delete_context_note' and the destructiveHint annotation, making the purpose ambiguous and misleading.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like archive_context_note, move_context_note, or update_context_note. The mention of 'privacy-filtered project metadata' is vague and does not convey any selection criteria or exclusion conditions.

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