delete_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 that deletion is permanent and that a missing note yields an error, but says nothing about permissions required, whether related data is affected, or any confirmation step — meaningful gaps for a destructive 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?

Front-loaded with the action and permanence caveat, then the argument and return value. The Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly redundant given the schema and output schema exist, but it is short and wastes no 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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return value is optional. For a simple one-parameter delete tool the description covers the action, the argument, and the failure mode; only auth/scope details are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It states note_id is 'the numeric ID of the note to delete', giving the type (numeric) and semantics (it identifies the target note), which is enough for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a note from the vault'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read/list/save siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative, but the destructive 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?

The word 'Permanently' implies this is the irreversible removal path versus update_note, so usage is implied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the note must exist, ownership/permissions), and no steer away from alternatives.

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