Drop a note the person said no to

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the real state outcome — the note is marked rejected with the reason attached and permanently excluded from Memory. It does not say whether a drop can be undone or what happens if the gate condition is violated.

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 tight sentences, with the gating condition front-loaded ahead of the effect. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the precondition and the resulting state, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. No output schema exists, so the only minor gap is error/reversal behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the id-or-last-8-characters convention and that reason should be the person's own words. The description only echoes 'with their reason', adding no format or fallback guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it sets a staged note aside as rejected, recording the reason, and the note never becomes Memory. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like keep or stage without opening a schema, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives a sharp, explicit precondition — call it only when the person has rejected the note in their own words in this conversation — which also implies the negative case (don't drop on your own inference). It stops short of naming keep or stage as the alternative when that condition isn't met.

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