delete_document_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it flags the operation as destructive, states it is permanent and irreversible, and discloses that the return value is the document's remaining notes. It does not mention permission/auth requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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 tightly written sentences with the DESTRUCTIVE warning and irreversibility front-loaded, then the return value. No wasted words.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, irreversibility, key parameter meaning, and return shape. Only a note about required permissions or a pointer to sibling list/bulk tools is missing.

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 schema already documents id, note_id, and confirm. The description adds only that deletion targets a 'note' by 'note ID' and implies a document context, which is marginal added value. Baseline 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 (delete), resource (a single note on a document), and the lookup key (note ID). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_document_notes and create_document_note.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive warning and the singular scope ('a single note'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., to remove many notes use bulk_edit_documents, or to list notes first use list_document_notes). No exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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