Removes a note file from a vault. Errors if missing unless missing_ok=True; lock files are preserved.
Delete a note file. Errors when missing unless missing_ok=True. Lock files are intentionally left in place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Vault-root-relative note path | |
| vault | Yes | Vault name | |
| missing_ok | No | Return success when already absent |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the default error-on-missing contract and the deliberate decision to leave lock files in place after deletion. It stops short of stating irreversibility or any required permission/confirmation, which for a destructive tool would be the remaining gap.
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, with zero filler. Each sentence carries a distinct and useful fact (action, error contract, side effect).
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 destructive single-target delete with no output schema, the description covers the action, the failure mode, the opt-out flag, and the notable lock-file side effect. It omits confirmation/permission expectations and recovery options, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description nonetheless adds meaning by expressing missing_ok as 'Errors when missing unless missing_ok=True', which makes the tool's default error behavior explicit in a way the schema's 'Return success when already absent' only implies.
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 note file'), which cleanly separates it from delete_vault and from non-destructive siblings like write_note or move_note. The agent knows exactly what the call does without opening the schema.
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 by the purpose and the description does give the failure condition ('Errors when missing unless missing_ok=True'), which helps the caller decide how to invoke it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to an alternative (e.g. restore, move_note) for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.