delete_rom_note

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies exactly what gets destroyed (the note, not ROM files) and emphasizes the explicit confirmation requirement. This is a meaningful safety-oriented behavioral disclosure that prevents catastrophic misuse.

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 two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the confirmation requirement, then the safety clarification. No wasted words.

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 single-note deletion tool, the description covers the two most critical aspects: the confirmation guard and the non-destruction of ROM files. The output schema exists to describe return values. Minor gaps remain around the exact role of rom_id and potential error states, but these are secondary given the simplicity of the operation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It does clarify the non-obvious confirm flag by stating 'after explicit confirmation,' and implies that note_id identifies the target note. However, the required rom_id parameter is left unexplained beyond its title, leaving some ambiguity about its role and relationship to note_id.

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 and resource: 'Delete one RomM note' and adds a crucial scoping statement, 'This does not delete ROM files,' which prevents misreading the tool as deleting ROMs. The resource is clearly distinguished from sibling delete_collection and delete_smart_collection tools.

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 description communicates a clear condition for use: deletion happens only 'after explicit confirmation,' i.e., confirm=true. It also states what the tool does not do—delete ROM files—which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for related operations, such as update_rom_note for edits.

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