delete_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the soft-delete behavior ('goes to Recently Deleted and can be restored') and the safety mechanism ('Requires confirm: true so it cannot fire accidentally'), which are important side effects and safety traits. However, it doesn't mention potential effects on related data (e.g., checklist items) or authorization requirements.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the soft-delete behavior, and the confirm requirement. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making the purpose immediately clear. No redundant information or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (two params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly adequate. It covers the key behavioral aspects (soft delete, confirm) and purpose. However, it omits the return value/response, potential side effects on related items (e.g., checklists), and permission requirements, leaving some gaps for an agent using the tool.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (note and confirm) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the rationale for confirm ('so it cannot fire accidentally'), which is not fully captured by the schema's 'Must be true to proceed'. This adds value beyond the structured data.

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 a note') and the resource (note), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action of deletion is distinct enough. The added context about Recently Deleted and confirm requirement further clarifies scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites or conditions, nor does it compare with similar tools like move_note or clear_checklist. The usage is implied only by the tool name and the first sentence.

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