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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the note's content is retained in the audit log (so the deletion is discarding visibility, not history) and the operation is permission-gated to the author or entry managers.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint and the default. 'Dry run by default' mildly duplicates the schema default, but as a headline safety cue it 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. The description covers the key things an agent needs: permission scope, audit-log retention, and the dry-run default. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., invalid note_id) but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 67%: 'entry' is richly documented in the schema (VHID/short name/QID) and 'dry_run' explains both branches. The description adds no parameter detail of its own beyond restating the dry-run default, and note_id carries only a regex pattern with no prose anywhere. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('an internal note on an entry'), which cleanly separates it from add_entry_note, edit_entry_note, and list_entry_notes. It even adds scope qualifiers (author or entry managers), so an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 permission parenthetical ('its author, or anyone who manages entries') tells the agent who is eligible, and 'dry run by default' hints at the safe call pattern. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to delete versus edit_entry_note, nor any stated precondition or when-not-to-use condition.

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