Delete a note by moving it to the vault trash. Files remain recoverable because permanent deletion is not supported.
Delete a .md, .pdf, or .canvas note by moving it to vault trash.
Permanent deletion is unsupported. Files remain recoverable in .trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | path relative to the vault |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key side effect: files are recoverable and permanent deletion is unsupported. However, it does not mention other potential effects such as permissions, related index updates, or what happens if the path doesn't exist. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it covers the most critical behavioral aspect.
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 concise, using just two sentences to convey the action and the recoverability aspect. No extraneous information is included, making it well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
The description explains the core behavior and the recoverable nature, which is sufficient for a simple delete operation. However, it does not mention the return value or error behavior, though the presence of an output schema (indicated in context) may reduce the need for that. Overall, it is reasonably complete but could benefit from a note about the output or failure scenarios.
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 only parameter 'path' is described as 'path relative to the vault', which is clear and sufficient. The schema coverage is 100%, so all parameter semantics are fully explained.
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 tool's function: deleting a note by moving it to trash, and clarifies the scope (md, pdf, canvas) and the non-permanent nature. The verb 'delete' and resource 'note' are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 explains the behavior (move to trash, recoverable) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like write_note or create_note. It implies a safe deletion use case but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.