Permanently delete a vault item by path or UID after confirmation. Use to remove a note or node when permanent deletion is intended.
Delete a vault item permanently.
Args: path: 8-character hex UID (e.g. "0b74b77c"), absolute path, or path relative to vault_root (e.g. "notes/my-note.md")
Always confirm with the user before calling this. Deletion is irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is irreversible and requires user confirmation. It does not cover secondary behavior such as what happens to inbound links/references or whether a missing path errors or no-ops.
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 destructive action and its permanence are front-loaded in the first sentence, the parameter forms follow, and the safety warning closes. No sentence is redundant.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it destroys, that it cannot be undone, that confirmation is required, and how to address the target. Only edge-case behavior (missing path, dangling references) is absent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the three accepted path forms (8-character hex UID, absolute path, path relative to vault_root) and gives a concrete example. It omits failure behavior for an unresolvable path, keeping it just short of full coverage.
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 a vault item') and adds the crucial qualifier 'permanently', which separates it from restore_vault and undo_last_vault_change in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Provides a strong procedural precondition ('Always confirm with the user before calling this'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like patch_vault, restore_vault, or undo_last_vault_change, so routing between tools is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.