Delete a note (author or admin)

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the two-phase confirm gate, that nothing is sent without confirm, that there is no server-side dry run, and that a request preview is returned instead — none of which the annotations convey.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose and the endpoint, then the execution gate. The '(author or admin)' phrase largely repeats the title, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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 mutation with a preview mode, the description covers purpose, permission scope, endpoint, and the confirm behavior; there is no output schema and the schema explains the preview itself. It stops short of saying whether the note is hard-deleted or recoverable, which is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is 67%, with the confirm and idempotencyKey parameters already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm gate but adds no meaning for the required 'id' parameter or for how idempotencyKey interacts with retries, so it only marginally exceeds the schema.

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 a note'), the authorization scope ('author or admin'), and the underlying endpoint (DELETE /v1/notes/{id}). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the adjacent notes_list, notes_create, and notes_update siblings.

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?

It gives the prerequisite that the caller must be the author or an admin, and states the execution precondition (confirm: true). It does not, however, point to any alternative (e.g., an archive/soft-delete path or notes_update) or state when deletion is inappropriate, so no real exclusions are offered.

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