Delete note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: irreversibility, the cascading scope of a directory delete, and the error behavior for a missing note. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what the response reports after deletion.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct rule — target selection, recursive requirement, concurrency guard, error case, and irreversibility. No filler and the destructive warning lands at the end where it is read.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers both deletion modes, the safety precondition, and failure semantics. Only the project-scoping parameter and post-delete response behavior are left entirely to structured fields.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces the identifier/path split and the checksum's provenance from bm_read, but says nothing about `project` or `output_format`, so it only marginally exceeds the baseline.

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?

Specific verb plus two clearly delineated resources: a note via `identifier` or a directory via `path`. The description makes the two deletion modes and their parameter mapping explicit, which distinguishes it from read/edit 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?

Gives concrete conditional rules: `recursive=true` is required for directories, and `expected_checksum` (sourced from bm_read) guards against concurrent modification. It does not name or rule out alternatives such as the sibling `delete_note`, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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