delete_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' and 'Confirmation of deletion' but does not disclose that deletion is likely permanent/irreversible, whether it cascades to associated cards, what happens if some note IDs are invalid, or if any permissions are required. The minimal wording leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise and well-structured. It front-loads the action, then provides an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no wasted text or repetition. This is a model of brevity.

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 delete operation, the description is minimal but lacks critical context. There are no annotations, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and no mention of side effects, error handling, or how to obtain note IDs. The output schema exists but the description's 'Confirmation of deletion' is vague. Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete.

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 description says 'note_ids: List of note IDs to delete' which essentially rephrases the parameter name from the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only explanation, but it does not clarify what a note ID represents, how to find these IDs (e.g., via search_notes), or any constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's array-of-integers definition.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('cards by their note IDs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_notes and update_note. However, there is slight ambiguity between 'cards' and 'notes'—the tool is named delete_notes but says it deletes cards, which could confuse users about the exact scope of the deletion.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain note IDs), no exclusions, and no comparison with sibling tools like search_notes or update_note. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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