delete_note

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behaviors. It does so by stating that the note goes to trash (recoverable) and warns about wikilink references. The description could improve by explicitly mentioning the effect of the 'permanent' parameter, but the provided information is sufficient for understanding default behavior.

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 very concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, result (trash), and side effect (warning). No superfluous information, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what happens to the note (trash), recovery possibility, and a warning feature. It does not explicitly mention the permanent deletion option, but the schema covers it. Overall, it provides adequate context for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions trash behavior which aligns with the default 'permanent=false', but otherwise the parameter definitions in the schema are already clear. The description does not elaborate on parameter formatting or constraints.

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 specific verbs ('eliminar', 'borrar', 'quitar') to clearly indicate deletion of a note, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like read_note or write_note by specifying the action and the result (moving to trash). It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 effectively states when to use this tool (to delete a note) and mentions key behaviors (trash, recoverability, wikilink warnings). However, it does not explicitly advise against using this tool for permanent deletion without the 'permanent' parameter or compare it to alternative tools like 'delete_category'.

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