delete_note

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral context that deletion is 'permanent' (irreversible) and scoped to 'the vault by id'. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not detail edge cases like missing ids or cascade effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'Permanently' conveys irreversibility, 'delete' the action, 'note from the vault' the resource, and 'by id' the parameter mapping.

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 simple single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action, target resource, identifier, and permanence. Annotations cover the destructive flag, and no output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the sole parameter. 'by id' indicates the id parameter identifies the note, which is helpful but minimal. It does not add examples, clarify id type (schema already does), or explain behavior when id is invalid.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete'), a clear resource ('note'), a location ('vault'), and the key mechanism ('by id'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like save_note, get_notes, search_notes, and update_note without needing to open any schema.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a note needs to be permanently removed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_note, nor does it mention any prerequisites or permission requirements.

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