delete_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the non-destructive behavior (trash not permanent deletion), preservation of directory structure, recoverability, and the WRITE_VAULT guard. This goes beyond basic expectations and would alert an agent to the safety and requirements of the 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?

Three sentences with no redundancy; the critical behavior and error condition are front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

The description covers behavior and error conditions, and an output schema exists. However, it fails to define what the 'source' parameter actually is (note path/ID), leaving the primary input ambiguous. It's adequate for a one-parameter tool but not fully complete.

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 'source' parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage) and the description never mentions it directly. While 'note' and 'vault' imply what it refers to, no format, path semantics, or validation constraints are provided, leaving the primary input ambiguous.

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 tool's function: moving a note to the .trash folder rather than deleting it permanently. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like move_note by specifying the trash destination and recoverability.

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 provides clear context that this is a soft-delete operation and mentions the WRITE_VAULT requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over move_note or other alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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