Delete a note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: irreversibility, the exact success string returned, the approval handshake ('Waiting for approval in Sara') and the fact that nothing changes until the owner presses Allow, plus the disabled-tool response. That is precisely the kind of workflow/auth behavior annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and irreversibility, and every sentence carries information an agent needs. The final sentence is a long run-on that chains the approval flow and the disabled-tool case together, which slightly hurts readability.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers availability gating, irreversibility, return strings and the approval lifecycle. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100% and the id property already documents the '#12' format and the refusal behavior for unknown ids. The description's 'by its id (from list_notes)' restates that pointer without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete one of the owner's notes from Sara's planner') and scopes it by id, pointing at list_notes as the source of that id. An agent can distinguish it from update_note/add_note/read_note purely from the description.

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?

Explains the gating condition under which the tool is even visible (owner must enable 'Let other apps change things') and the approval requirement, which tells the agent when a call will actually take effect. It does not, however, name alternatives such as update_note for non-destructive edits, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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