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 and successfully discloses two key behavioral traits: (1) the soft-delete nature (moves to trash rather than immediate destruction), and (2) the specific permission scope required. It does not mention reversibility, rate limits, or error cases.

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 sentences efficiently convey all necessary information: the first states the action and mechanism (trash), the second states the permission requirement. No redundant words or tautology; every element earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral context (trash behavior, auth scope). It could be improved by mentioning error cases (e.g., note not found) or return value structure, but it is complete enough for a straightforward deletion operation.

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% with the single parameter 'note_id' already described as '笔记 ID' in the schema. The description confirms the operation applies to the note but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 a specific verb ('删除' / delete) with clear resource ('笔记' / note) and distinguishes the specific behavior by specifying it moves to trash ('移入回收站') rather than permanent deletion. This clearly defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear prerequisite context by stating the required OAuth scope ('note.content.trash'), which is essential usage information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_note' or 'save_note', though the verb 'delete' makes this relatively clear.

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