Delete a note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so irreversibility is partly pre-signalled; the description nonetheless reinforces it in plain language and adds the operationally important requirement to obtain user confirmation. It also previews the return payload, which goes beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about side effects on related records or how a failure (e.g., unknown id) is surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the irreversibility warning, then the return shape. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter, destructive annotations, and an output schema already declaring structuredContent, most structured burden is covered and the description fills the behavioral gap (confirmation, permanence). The only missing piece is what happens to a note's associated data or attachments upon deletion, a minor gap for a delete tool.

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 coverage is 100%: note_id is documented as a 24-character hex id with a matching regex pattern. The description only restates "by id" and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup-hint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Permanently deletes one note by id" gives a specific verb (delete), resource (note), cardinality (one) and lookup key (id), which cleanly separates it from heliyos_notes_get, heliyos_notes_update and heliyos_records_delete. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the resource scoping makes mis-selection unlikely.

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 instruction "confirm with the user first" is a real precondition that shapes agent behavior before invocation. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer an alternative (e.g., heliyos_notes_update to modify rather than remove, or heliyos_notes_get to verify the target first), so the when-to-use context is implied rather than stated.

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