Delete merge request 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 'permanently', reinforcing the irreversible nature. It also specifies the scope (a note or reply in an MR discussion) which goes beyond the annotation. No mention of permissions or side effects like affecting the whole discussion, but the destructive hint plus 'permanently' provide adequate transparency for a delete operation.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated), and the annotations cover destructive behavior and open-world semantics. The description is sufficient for a simple delete action, but lacks details like whether it returns the deleted note, permission requirements, or behavior if the note doesn't exist. Given the simplicity of the operation and existing annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 50% (project and merge_request_iid have descriptions, discussion_id and note_id do not). The description mentions 'note or reply' and implies discussion/note context, but it doesn't explain the meaning of discussion_id and note_id or how they relate. Since the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory and the description ties to a 'discussion', it adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'note or reply from a GitLab merge request discussion', using specific terms like 'permanently' and 'merge request discussion' that distinguish it from update_merge_request_note (update) and create/reply operations. It is unambiguous about its function.

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 does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this vs. update_merge_request_note or reply_merge_request_discussion. However, the intent is clear from the verb 'delete', and the context of siblings makes it obvious. It lacks explicit exclusion or prerequisite guidance (e.g., 'use this instead of updating the note').

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