delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important recoverability trait ('stays recoverable through restore_version'), which is valuable beyond the schema, but omits permissions, permanence after version lifetime, and side effects on chunks.

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 followed by the key recoverability note. There is no wasted text.

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?

The description covers the essential delete-and-recover model for a mutation tool with an output schema. It still lacks permission requirements and the conditions under which recovery stops being possible, which matter for a destructive operation with no annotations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required item_id, so the description should compensate. It only hints that the target may be 'a note or chunk', which adds some type context but does not explain the expected ID format or whether IDs are shared across both resource types.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a note or chunk'), which is clearer than a bare name. It partially distinguishes itself from the sibling restore_version by noting recoverability, though it doesn't clarify the exact identity or type of the target item_id.

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?

Usage is implied: delete a note or chunk, and recover via restore_version. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over update_note or when deletion is inappropriate, leaving alternatives and exclusions to inference.

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