delete_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not cover permissions or side effects on linked references, but the key destructive nature is clearly flagged.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences that convey the action, the resource, and the key irreversible consequence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose and irreversibility, while the schema covers the parameter. It could explicitly note single-note vs. batch, but this is implied and not a significant gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'path' parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Path to the note to delete'), so no extra value is added.

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 (note from the vault), with 'permanently' distinguishing it from reversible operations. It implies a single-note scope via 'a note' and the path parameter, which differentiates it from batch_delete.

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 irreversibility warning ('This action cannot be undone') implies use only when permanent deletion is intended. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like batch_delete for multiple notes or suggest creating a backup first, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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