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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires confirmation,' which hints at a safety mechanism, but doesn't clarify if the deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., impact on related data). For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a note from Joplin') and adds a crucial behavioral note ('requires confirmation') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, or irreversible consequences. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use, especially compared to siblings that may have similar operations.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('note_id' and 'confirm') clearly. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'confirm' parameter's purpose ('requires confirmation'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a note from Joplin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_folder' by specifying the note resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools. The description goes beyond a tautology of the tool name by adding context about Joplin.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'requires confirmation,' suggesting this tool should be used when deletion is intended and confirmed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'delete_folder' or other note-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative context.

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