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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the action is destructive and it only affects the caller's own note, plus the auth requirement. It says nothing about whether deletion is reversible, whether a missing note errors or is a no-op, or what the response looks like.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the auth prerequisite in parentheses. Nothing is redundant, though the terseness comes at the cost of omitting behavioral detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no annotations), so a short description is defensible. Still, for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, the absence of outcome and failure-mode information leaves a noticeable gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines facility_id as 機構編號. The description only reiterates that the note belongs to the specified facility, adding no syntax, format, or sourcing 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?

The description states a specific verb (刪除) and resource (筆記) and narrows scope to the current logged-in user's note for a specified facility (目前登入者對指定機構). That scoping distinguishes it from sibling note tools such as get_note and upsert_note without naming them.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite that an Authorization Bearer token is required. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. upsert_note with empty content), nor any note about idempotency or what happens when no note exists.

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