delete_bulletin_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully reveals a constraint ('unpinned' notes only), but omits that this is an irreversible destructive operation, whether it requires ownership/permissions, and what happens if the note is pinned or absent.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and the 'unpinned' constraint both land immediately, and nothing needs trimming.

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 simple two-parameter mutation this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should at least say the removal is destructive/permanent and note the pinned-note failure case. As written, an agent has the 'what' but not the operational context.

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 both parameters (note_id, store_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-source, or slug-vs-ID detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('note from the store bulletin board'), which cleanly separates it from siblings post_bulletin_note and get_bulletin_board. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like post_bulletin_note or get_bulletin_board, and no preconditions (e.g., needing the note to be unpinned first, or how to obtain note_id). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and verb.

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