Removes a note from a job application by specifying the associated job ID and note ID.
Delete a note from a job application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID the note belongs to | |
| note_id | Yes | The note ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'delete.' It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it requires ownership or special permissions, or what happens to the parent job record, which are the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is efficient. The brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive tool, but nothing in the text is wasted or redundant.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and error behavior. The input schema fully covers the two parameters, but the behavioral side is left entirely undisclosed.
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%, with both job_id and note_id clearly documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about identifier format, sourcing, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 verb (delete) and resource (a note from a job application), so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related add_job_note and update_job_note siblings beyond the verb itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_job_note, update_job_note, or delete_job, nor any precondition such as ownership of the note. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.