delete_planner_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context by explaining that Canvas soft-deletes, so the note is recoverable. That value is undercut by the vague hedging 'Safe, reversible-ish' and by the absence of any detail on whether the note disappears from list_planner_notes or how long the soft-delete window lasts.

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?

Two short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and no wasted framing. The colloquial 'reversible-ish' costs a little precision but not length.

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 values need not be described, and the soft-delete note covers the main behavioral question for a destructive tool. Still missing is how to obtain a valid note_id and what error behavior to expect, which matters even for a one-parameter deletion.

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 0% for the single required note_id parameter. The description only restates 'by ID', adding no information about where the ID comes from (planner_items or list_planner_notes), its type, or what happens when an unknown ID is supplied, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Uses a specific verb plus resource ('Delete a personal planner note') and scopes it to 'personal', which cleanly separates it from create_planner_note and list_planner_notes. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the routing from the verb alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_planner_note or mark_planner_item_complete. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Delete'.

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