Delete Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the deletion is 'permanent', signaling irreversibility, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also scopes the operation to the Obsidian vault, but doesn't mention side effects like reference cleanup; however, that is not essential for this simple 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 one sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb 'delete'. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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—one parameter, no output schema—the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the subject, and the permanence. The schema handles the parameter details, so no additional context is needed for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema fully describes the 'path' parameter with its relative-to-vault-root format, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema, which 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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'note' and scope 'from the Obsidian vault', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note, read_note, and update_note. The word 'permanently' adds important nuance about the operation's effect.

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 implies usage when a user wants to remove a note from the vault. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools don't offer an obvious competing delete operation, so the guidance is clear. The context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over others.

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