delete_note

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the two most important behavioral facts — deletion is a move to trash rather than a permanent erase, and an auth scope is required. It does not say whether the operation is reversible or how to restore, whether it is idempotent, or what happens to attachments/tags, so it is helpful but incomplete for a destructive 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its soft-delete nature front-loaded before the permission note. Nothing repeats the schema or the title.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, soft-delete semantics, and the required scope, which is enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any restore/recovery hint or error-behavior note, which matters because no annotations supply a safety profile.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already specifying the tricky ID format (decimal string preferred, JS safe integer only). The description adds nothing about note_id, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (删除笔记) and immediately clarifies the operation is a soft delete into the trash (移入回收站). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_note, update_note, and delete_note_tag, which an agent could otherwise confuse with note removal.

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 names the prerequisite permission (note.content.trash scope), which is genuinely useful context for deciding whether a call will succeed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., restore path, or removing a note from a topic instead of deleting it), leaving intent to be inferred from the tool name.

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