Delete a hand-written note (to the vault trash)

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses the soft-delete semantics (nothing is erased, the file lands in .trash/ which is never indexed) and that the result returns a restore path. It also enumerates the eligibility restrictions, which the annotations do not convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, followed by the recovery and eligibility caveats. No filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, reversibility, return value (restore path) and eligibility limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'note' parameter, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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/move) and resource (note in Notes/ or Captures/) plus the exact mechanism (moving into .trash/). It also names the scope boundary — generated notes and the memory file cannot be deleted — which distinguishes it from sibling write/move tools.

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?

Gives a clear when-not condition: generated notes and the memory file are ineligible, and the target folders are restricted to Notes/ or Captures/. It does not name an alternative for relocating rather than deleting (e.g., brain_move), so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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