Remove a source

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, yet the description adds real side-effect detail beyond that: linked notes retain their text and the broken link is dropped and reported. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before calling a destructive tool. It stops short of stating permanence/undo or required permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action followed immediately by the consequence. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its key side effect, and the annotation covers destructiveness. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and failure behavior, but an agent has enough to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented (source id or cite key) in the schema itself. The description adds no additional format or matching semantics, so the baseline of 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 ("Delete") and resource ("a source"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_note, update_source, and add_source. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 delete semantics imply usage, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., update_source for edits, get_source for inspection) are given. Nothing is misleading, but routing conditions are left to inference.

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