Delete a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses irreversibility via 'Permanently delete,' which is the single most important trait for a destructive tool, but says nothing about required permissions, behavior on a nonexistent id, or whether any confirmation/soft-delete path exists.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive qualifier ('permanently') front and center, and zero filler. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is close to 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 single-parameter delete with no output schema the essentials are present, but a destructive tool with no annotations should ideally state permissions, failure modes, and non-recoverability. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want covered.

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 100% and the lone parameter is already documented as 'The note id to delete.' The description's 'by its id' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) plus resource (note) and the selector (by its id), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_note, add_note, and list_notes. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites or permissions, and no mention of alternatives or when this should be avoided. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool name alone.

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