fenbs_delete_context_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that deletion is irreversible ('cannot be restored from fenbs yet'), requires permission to change tasks, and recommends update as the safer alternative when the note is only stale. It stops short of explaining the deletion mechanics or success response.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the paragraph is appropriately sized for a destructive operation with important caveats. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'say which note you are deleting and why' instruction adds operational guidance rather than purely definitional clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: identification by id or exact title, irreversibility, the update alternative, and permission needs. It does not explicitly state that at least one of id or match must be supplied, though the schema and description together make that clear enough.

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 schema already documents both id and match, including case-insensitivity and duplicate-title refusal. The description repeats the identification options but adds no meaningful syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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+resource (delete a context note), adds the condition that selects it (wrong or no longer applies, so assistants stop reading it), and distinguishes it from update_context_note by explicitly routing out-of-date notes to update instead.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: delete when the note is wrong or no longer applies, update instead when it is merely out of date. It names fenbs_list_context_notes for finding the id, requires stating which note and why before deletion, and notes the permission requirement.

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