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 real value beyond them: it discloses that the call returns a versioned deletion result and explicitly enumerates what is NOT destroyed (project, source files, session). That blast-radius statement is the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the scope-limiting clause. Every sentence earns its 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, version-guarded mutation with seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: identity of the target, the returned result, and the nonexistent side effects. It leaves the roles of the optional details/sessionId/executionId fields unexplained, but those are secondary to calling the tool correctly.

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 nominally 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies, though several schema descriptions are copy-pasted project-ID text on noteId/sessionId/executionId, which muddies them. The description at least names noteId and expectedVersion as the operative identifying pair, but adds no format or conflict-handling detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 Context note) and preemptively bounds the blast radius — it will not delete the project, source files, or session. It stops short of differentiating from the closest sibling, archive_context_note, which an agent must also consider.

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?

The description implies when this applies (removing a single owned note) and scopes what it does not affect, but never says when to prefer delete over archive_context_note or convert_context_note, nor states any preconditions beyond the implicit version requirement.

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