contacts_delete_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a destructive operation. However, the description adds no additional context such as permanence, side effects, or that the deletion is irreversible. It merely repeats the action without enriching the behavioral profile beyond what annotations provide.

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 two words, which is concise but drastically under-specified. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it fails to convey essential information beyond the tool name. It has no structure and does not front-load any useful 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?

For a mutation tool with destructive behavior and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no information about return values, errors, prerequisites, or what the deletion entails. An agent cannot fully understand the operation's effect or requirements from this description alone.

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 describes both parameters (id and contactId) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters relate or are used, but since the schema does the job, the baseline of 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?

The description 'Delete Note' states a verb and resource, but it is extremely terse and does not specify the context (e.g., deleting a note from a contact). It does not distinguish well from other delete tools like contacts_delete_contact. It is nearly a tautology and lacks sufficient specificity for an agent to understand the exact scope without inferring from the tool name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the intended use case. An agent receives zero direction on selecting this over other note-related tools.

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