dex_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. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'permanently delete' implies irreversible mutation, and 'removes the timeline entry from all associated contacts' explains side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation steps, leaving gaps for a destructive operation.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core action, and the second adds critical side-effect information. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the action and scope but misses details like return values, error cases, or authentication needs. It's adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps for safe usage.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'noteId' as the identifier for deletion, though it doesn't detail format or sourcing. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is high, but it doesn't fully explain the parameter beyond its role.

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 clearly states the specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a note by ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'dex_update_note' (modify) and 'dex_create_note' (create). It adds scope by mentioning removal from 'all associated contacts,' which is not obvious from the name alone.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note ID from another operation) or warn against misuse (e.g., irreversible deletion). The context is implied from the action, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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