delete_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the critical trait that deletion is irreversible, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects on links or attachments, or behavior when the path does not exist.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded and the critical non-restorable warning is included parenthetically with minimal overhead.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it gives the operation and its irreversibility. The main gap is that path semantics are undocumented, which an agent needs to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has one required string parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what kind of path is expected (absolute vs relative, note name, extension, etc.). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific action ('Supprime définitivement une note') with a clear resource and an explicit irreversibility qualifier ('non restaurable'). This distinguishes delete_note from sibling trash_note/restore_note, which imply a recovery path.

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 permanent/non-restorable qualifier gives clear context for when this tool should be selected: when the note must be permanently removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like trash_note or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a full routing explanation.

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