Delete note

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the critical detail that the comment thread is also deleted, which is a non-obvious side effect. It also emphasizes 'irreversible', reinforcing permanence beyond the generic destructive hint. This provides value beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 sentence, front-loaded with intent, plus a short second sentence for the ID source. There is no redundancy or filler. Every clause contributes critical operational information.

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?

Given that this is a destructive tool with rich annotations, the description covers the primary effect, irreversibility, and dependency on a list operation. With no output schema, it need not explain return values. It omits explicit mention of the optional athlete parameter, but that is clearly specified in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema only documents the 'athlete' parameter, leaving 'note_id' undocumented. The description compensates by pointing to tp_list_notes as the source for note_id, giving it meaning. The athlete parameter's purpose is already clear from its schema description. Thus both parameters acquire adequate semantic grounding.

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 action: 'Permanently delete a calendar note and its comment thread'. This uses a specific verb (delete), specific resource (calendar note), and adds the scope (its comment thread), distinguishing it from other note-related tools like tp_get_note or tp_update_note.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: 'Note ID from tp_list_notes', which tells the agent where to obtain the required identifier. It also warns that the operation is 'irreversible', which is important usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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