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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it flags the operation as destructive and states that approval is required by default, which explains the approval workflow the agent will encounter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and immediately followed by the safety/approval constraint. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse rather than information-dense.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns. It supplies the trigger, the destructive nature, and the approval dependency, which is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 100%, so both note_id and approval_id are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention that approval is required by default adds a small amount of meaning about when approval_id matters, but no syntax, format, or optionality detail beyond the schema.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('delete a note'), which cleanly separates it from the notes.create/get/list/update siblings. However, it frames the purpose as a trigger condition rather than stating the operation, so it reads more as routing guidance than a purpose statement.

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 gives an explicit when ('When the user asks to delete a note'), which is real usage context. But it names no alternatives, no when-not conditions, and doesn't say what to do instead for softer operations like archiving, so guidance is only implied beyond the trigger.

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