delete_note

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations clearly mark it as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, so the agent already knows it is a destructive operation. The description does not disclose permanence, side effects, or any additional context.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple delete operation. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification.

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 strong annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the minimal description is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks any mention of return values, error conditions, or whether the note is permanently removed. The annotations cover the safety profile, so the spareness is less critical than it would be without them.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter (note_id) with the description 'the id of the note'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it.

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 'Delete a note' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_currency or delete_item. However, it is almost identical to the tool name and offers no additional nuance about the type of note or scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when deletion might be inappropriate, or any exclusions. The sibling list includes update_note and other delete_* tools, but the description does not help differentiate usage.

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