delete_noteDelete a note from SalesSuite CRM by passing its unique noteId. Use it to remove outdated or incorrect notes tied to contacts, deals, or other records.
Delete note.
Deletes a note by noteId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes | The unique ID of the note. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. However, the description adds nothing beyond them — it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, what happens if the noteId is unknown or already deleted (relevant given idempotency), or what is returned. For a destructive operation this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.
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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence duplicates the first rather than adding information, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. No sentence after the first earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations explaining consequences, the description should at minimum state permanence and expected outcome on success or on an unknown ID. It covers neither, leaving the agent under-informed relative to the tool's risk.
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% and the single required parameter carries a UUID format, pattern, and its own description ("The unique ID of the note."). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 is a tautology: "Delete note." restates the tool name and title verbatim, and "Deletes a note by `noteId`" only re-identifies the single parameter already named in the schema. It conveys no scope, no distinction from siblings like get_note or create_note beyond what the name itself already implies.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g. ownership or permission requirements), and no caution about when not to use it. An agent must infer everything from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.