maimemo_delete_notepad

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permanence of deletion, absence of undo, or auth requirements, effectively only restating the purpose.

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 short phrase with no wasted words and the purpose is front-loaded, so it is maximally compact. However, the brevity verges on under-specification for a destructive operation rather than being a model of efficient structure.

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?

The rich annotations (destructive, non-idempotent) plus a complete schema with a mandatory confirm flag cover most of what an agent needs before invoking. The description contributes nothing about irreversibility, scope of deletion, or recovery, leaving it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%; both 'id' (云词本 id) and the required 'confirm' flag are documented in the schema, including the authorization semantics of confirm. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, the description adds nothing beyond the schema and a 3 is 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 '删除云词本' (delete cloud notepad) gives a clear verb+resource pair that an agent can map directly to the tool's intent. It is unambiguous on its own but does not differentiate itself from related siblings such as maimemo_delete_phrase or maimemo_delete_note beyond naming the resource.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (e.g., get_notepad to verify before deleting). A single phrase of purpose text leaves usage entirely to inference.

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