delete_noteMove a note to the trash so it can be restored later with restore_note.
Soft-delete a note to trash (restorable with restore_note).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}New value: +truev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it delivers the key trait: deletion is soft and moves the note to trash, and the action is reversible via restore_note. It does not mention permissions or side effects on links, but the output schema can cover return details.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler; the action and the key caveat are both front-loaded and the restore pointer is tucked cleanly into a parenthetical.
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 mutation with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, behavior, and undo path. Minor details like note_id sourcing or trash behavior after restore are absent, but not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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?
There is only one parameter, note_id (string), and the description indicates it identifies the note being soft-deleted, which is reasonable but adds little format or provenance guidance. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates, but the single obvious parameter limits the ambiguity.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'soft-delete' with resource 'note' and destination 'trash', making the operation unmistakable. It also names restore_note as the inverse, distinguishing it from a permanent delete and from the restore sibling.
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 soft-delete wording clearly implies this is the right tool when a note should be removed but kept recoverable. The parenthetical points to restore_note for reversal, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with move_note/update_note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.