Delete an unlocked note by ID, removing it from Apple Notes and syncing the deletion to other devices.
Delete an unlocked note using Notes deletion behavior. May sync deletion to other devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noteId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: only unlocked notes can be deleted, and the deletion may propagate to other devices via sync. It does not say whether the deletion is recoverable or goes to a trash, which is the most important missing behavioral detail for a destructive 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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with no padding. 'Using Notes deletion behavior' is close to filler, but the sentence overall still earns its place by carrying the sync caveat.
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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation with no output schema, the description covers the lock precondition and cross-device propagation but omits the key facts an agent needs before firing it: whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, and how to supply noteId. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 single parameter noteId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not its format, where to obtain it, or that it is required. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not, so this sits below the baseline.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete an ... note'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling note tools such as apple_notes_get, apple_notes_create, and apple_notes_update. It also names a precondition ('unlocked'), but does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative deletion path, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or warning about confirmation. The word 'unlocked' implicitly signals that locked notes cannot be deleted, but this is left for the agent to infer rather than stated as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.