delete_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'permanent' parameter and return format, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects linked resources, or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, and each sentence is purposeful. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into the Args section, but overall it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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 the complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return value specifics, which are crucial for safe invocation. The tool's destructive nature demands more comprehensive guidance.

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 explains both parameters ('note_id' and 'permanent'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints for 'note_id' or clarify the implications of 'permanent' beyond the basic boolean choice, leaving room for improvement.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a note from Joplin'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'create_note' beyond the obvious action difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used instead of 'update_note' for removal scenarios, or if there are prerequisites like checking note existence first. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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