Delete a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the trash behavior and the permanent bypass, but does not discuss side effects like reversibility, error handling, or impact on linked notes. More context would be beneficial for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any superfluous words. Every part earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description addresses the core function and the special permanent parameter. It could be improved by noting error behavior when the file doesn't exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters: 'file' is described as 'Note name / wikilink to delete.' and 'permanent' is a boolean with default false. The description adds no extra value beyond what the schema already states. Schema coverage is 50% (one param described), so the baseline is adequate.

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 (deletes), resource (note), and a key behavioral detail (trash vs permanent). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like obsidian_read or obsidian_move.

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 specifies default trash behavior and the permanent option, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives like obsidian_move for relocating, which would improve clarity.

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