Remove a note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to quotes or citations, or whether any confirmation/permission is required. With the annotation bar lower, this is a thin but non-contradictory entry.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it is arguably too terse to carry any real information.

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?

A destructive mutation with no output schema, an undocumented identifier parameter, and no annotation beyond destructiveHint. The description leaves critical questions unanswered: irreversibility, side effects on related data, and expected response.

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?

One parameter ('id') has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what kind of identifier it expects — note id vs. source id is genuinely ambiguous given sibling tools like get_note and remove_source. The description provides no compensating detail.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('research note'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_source, update_note, and add_note. It never names an alternative, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this instead of update_note (to clear content) or remove_source (to delete a source and its notes). No prerequisites, no warning about irreversibility, no statement of what happens to notes attached to deleted sources.

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