remove_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It states the tool deletes a note, which implies destructive action, but does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects, or permission requirements. The TTL preference hints at lifecycle context but lacks depth on what 'decay' means operationally.

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. The first states the action and object, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it. Minor gaps include not explaining what happens to related data (e.g., references) or whether deletion is soft or hard, but the tool is simple enough that these may not be critical.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'note_id' described as 'Note ID to remove', so the schema already provides clear semantics. The description adds no further detail about the parameter, such as format or source, but does not need to given the high coverage.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Delete') and the target resource ('note'), and adds 'immediately' to indicate urgency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_note and update_note by focusing on deletion, and the ttl reference hints at a lifecycle context.

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 second sentence explicitly advises when to use this tool versus alternatives: prefer natural TTL decay for low-value notes, implying use remove_note only for notes requiring immediate deletion. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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