delete_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so very well. It discloses that the operation is a soft delete, what views are affected, that the note is recoverable for 30 days, and that it is eventually purged. This far exceeds a generic 'deletes a note' description.

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 sentences front-load the primary behavior and then provide the most relevant recovery and inspection guidance. Every clause adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the immediate effect, the recovery window, the eventual purge, and how to view trashed notes. No critical calling context is missing.

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 description only says 'by id', which adds little beyond the schema's property name for the id parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not explain valid IDs, behavior for missing IDs, or idempotency. The schema itself defines UUID format, but the description adds no meaning beyond that.

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?

Clearly states that this tool soft-deletes a note by id and describes the exact effect: the note disappears from list_notes, search, get_note, and the graph. This distinguishes it from related tools like restore_note and delete_folder.

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?

Explains that the delete is recoverable and points to restore_note as the recovery path, and instructs agents to use list_notes with trashed:true to inspect the trash. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly exclude cases like permanently deleting or deleting folders.

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