vault_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does an excellent job: it discloses that the tool commits, removes the MOC line, refuses to delete unsafe candidates, lists who points at the note, breaks links, and returns an undo command. This is exceptional behavioral transparency.

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 dense but perfectly structured: the core action comes first, followed by refusal conditions, confirmation behavior, and the undo guarantee. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no fluff.

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, mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers all the essential context an agent needs: side effects, refusal conditions, confirmation requirements, and even the undo command in the response. It is remarkably 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning for 'path' or 'confirm' beyond what the schema already provides; it mostly restates the safety conditions rather than elaborating parameter formats or values.

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 action ('Deletes a note and commits'), a resource ('note', 'domain MOC'), and a distinctive side effect (removing its line from the MOC). It also enumerates refusal conditions, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from write, edit, and move 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 concrete context for when deletion is allowed vs refused: requires a committed version in HEAD, cannot target structural notes or archive paths, and needs confirm when backlinks exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives like vault_move for archiving, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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