Remove a context note

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about the mutation itself: whether deletion is reversible, whether confirmation or elevated permissions are required, or what happens to notes already referenced elsewhere. It only conveys intent for use, not the consequences or mechanics of the destructive action.

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 telegraphic clauses with zero filler, and the delete criterion is front-loaded before the update_context redirection. The terseness costs a bit of grammatical completeness (no explicit verb for what happens), but nothing is redundant.

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 an unannotated destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the routing decision well but omits any statement of effects, reversibility, or the post-delete state. An agent knows when to call it, but not what calling it costs.

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%: context_id is documented in the schema (and the schema description itself repeats the update-context preference), and the optional model param is self-explanatory. The description adds no syntax, format, or identifier-source detail beyond that, 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 tool name and title carry the verb+resource ('delete_context' / 'Remove a context note'), but the description itself never states that it removes the note identified by context_id. It instead describes only the selection criterion, so the actual operation must be inferred from the name. It does, however, implicitly distinguish itself from update_context, which helps disambiguation.

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 explicitly defines when to delete (a note that should never have been written: wrong project, or superseded to the point of misleading) and when not to, naming the alternative tool ('merely out of date: update_context'). The edge case boundary between delete and update is stated rather than left to inference.

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