x_api_delete_community_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutating and high-risk nature, required OAuth tokens and scopes, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This goes far beyond a simple 'delete' statement and gives the agent a complete behavioral model.

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 highly structured with labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection, Parameter formats, Expected response, Common failures, Recommended tools, Safety, Example). Every sentence adds unique value, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, parameter behavior, expected response, failure conditions, and an example. This fully equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 compensates by explaining the role of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in auth resolution, and mentions id as required. It doesn't fully detail authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, but the example and safety warning reference them. Given the number of params, this is solid but not exhaustive.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Delete a Community Note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_community_notes or search_community_notes_written. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, naming alternatives like x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion for exploration scenarios. It also lists recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools, giving clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool versus exploring or configuring first.

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