delete_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Exclui' signals a destructive operation, but nothing is said about irreversibility, whether the note goes to trash or is permanently removed, or whether confirmations/permissions are required — critical gaps for a delete tool.

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?

A single short sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin — it omits reversibility, side effects on links/references, and failure behavior. An agent has no basis for cautious invocation.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has 100% schema description coverage defining it as a relative path. The description adds no further semantics about path syntax, rooting, or resolution, 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?

States a specific verb ('Exclui') and resource ('uma nota do vault do Obsidian'), which is enough to tell it apart from read_note, append_to_note, and create_or_update_note. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from any sibling or clarifies whether it targets the whole vault or a specific note path.

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 indication of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., create_or_update_note for modifications). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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