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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds value by stating irreversibility explicitly ('Cannot be undone') and by enumerating the note subtypes affected, though it does not discuss permission requirements or failure modes.

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, all front-loaded: the action and scope first, then the irreversibility warning, then the id source and the sibling alternative. No sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: scope, irreversibility, id provenance, and the sibling alternative. Nothing essential is missing.

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% for the single 'note' parameter, so the schema already documents the id and its provenance. The description repeats that provenance ('Note ids come from notebook_list_notes') without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (one note) and clarifies the resource covers notes, saved answers, and mind map notes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from notebook_delete_notebook, so an agent can select it without comparing schemas.

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?

Names the prerequisite source for the id ('Note ids come from notebook_list_notes') and routes the agent to the alternative ('to delete the whole notebook use notebook_delete_notebook'), covering both when to use it and when to use something else.

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