Remove selected notes from a knowledge base using its ID and note IDs to keep the knowledge base accurate and organized.
将笔记从知识库中移除。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_ids | Yes | 笔记 ID 列表（字符串格式） | |
| topic_id | Yes | 知识库 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / note_ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"笔记 ID 列表"New value: +"笔记 ID 列表（字符串格式）"Input schema / properties / note_ids / items / typePrevious value: -[
- "number",
- "string"
-]New value: +"string"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not explain whether the note is deleted permanently, merely unlinked from the topic, what happens if the note or topic is missing, or whether permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves important behavioral context unstated.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the difference between removing a note from a topic and deleting it, nor does it describe side effects, reversibility, or expected outcomes.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema coverage but does not exceed the baseline.
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 clear verb and resource: removing a note from a knowledge base. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools such as delete_note or batch_add_notes_to_topic.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_note, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.