ustx_delete_notes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that omitting indices deletes all notes, without stating that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether the file is modified in place or must be saved, or what happens if indices are out of range. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the full Japanese restatement doubles the length without adding information. The meaning is clear, though the duplicate halves dilute density.

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?

Given three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves the required path/part semantics and the destructive-write behavior unexplained. It is adequate for a simple deletion but not complete for a file-mutating tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains 'indices' and its default. The required 'path' and 'part' parameters — including what a 'part' refers to — receive no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 ('Delete notes ... from a .ustx file'), and the '.ustx' qualifier distinguishes it from the generic delete_notes sibling. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the file-scoped wording makes the target clear.

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 parenthetical '(no indices = all)' conveys the key usage decision — omit indices to clear everything — which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling delete_notes, nor any warning about operating on an open project.

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