Delete a note from a document permanently. Provide the document ID, note ID, and explicit confirmation to complete the removal.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Delete a note from a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document ID | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation | |
| note_id | Yes | The note ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the warning is redundant but reinforces the safety profile. The description adds the confirmation requirement via the 'confirm' parameter, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens to associated data or whether the operation is reversible.
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 a single short sentence with the warning flag front-loaded. It is concise and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the warning from the action.
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 simplicity (3 scalar params, no output schema), the description is adequate. The destructive nature is highlighted, and the confirm parameter is self-explanatory. However, missing usage guidance and potential side effects mean it falls short of being fully complete for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, note_id, confirm) having a description. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the confirm parameter's purpose is already clear from the schema.
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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a note from a document'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting notes specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like delete_tag or delete_document_version.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the document ID and note ID, or that the operation is irreversible, which would help agents decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.