delete_planner_noteDelete a Canvas planner note by its note ID to remove unwanted entries from your own planner; only your notes are affected.
Delete one of your Canvas planner notes. This only affects your own notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes | Planner note ID, from list_planner_notes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as destructive and idempotent, so irreversibility is covered structurally. The description contributes additional context beyond them: the operation is confined to the caller's own notes, which tells an agent this cannot touch other users' data.
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, action first, with the scope caveat second. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
A single-parameter mutation with full schema documentation and complete safety annotations needs little more. Only the outcome of deleting a non-existent or already-deleted note is left implicit, which is minor given idempotentHint=true.
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% and the single parameter already carries a description pointing to list_planner_notes as the source of IDs. The prose adds no further meaning about the ID format or behavior on an invalid ID, so the 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ("Delete ... Canvas planner notes") and scopes it to a single note. That distinguishes it from the create/update/list planner-note siblings without their being named explicitly.
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 update_planner_note or list_planner_notes for verifying the target. The ownership clause is a scope statement, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.