delete_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: cascading deletion of all cards generated from the notes. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, confirmation steps, or what happens to associated media. This partial disclosure warrants a middle score.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and the cascade effect. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 destructive operation with three optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about the JSON file format, the purpose of output_file, whether the inputs are alternatives or complementary, and any safety or confirmation behavior. An agent calling this tool would need to infer these details or look elsewhere, making it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that notes can be deleted by note_ids or from a JSON file list (input_file), adding meaning to those two parameters. However, it does not explain output_file at all, nor does it clarify whether note_ids and input_file are mutually exclusive or can be combined. This is incomplete compensation for zero schema coverage.

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 notes'), the resource (notes), and adds a distinctive detail: it also deletes all cards generated from them. It also specifies two input methods (Note IDs or JSON file list), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_deck. This is clear and specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or compare to delete_deck, update_note, or other note-related operations. The description is purely declarative and offers no context for selection.

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