Delete an Annotation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this while adding a requirement the annotations do not carry: confirm with the user first. However, it omits whether deletion is permanent or undoable and what happens to the annotation's content or dependent references, which is material for an irreversible operation.

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?

Three short blocks – purpose, a flagged warning, and one example – with the destructive warning front-loaded ahead of the example. The example adds marginal value over the purpose sentence but is not wasteful; no filler prose.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and an output schema handling return values, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about permanence or recovery for a destructive tool.

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% and the single parameter is well documented in the schema, including the UUID pattern and its provenance ('Annotation UUID from get_annotations'). The description adds nothing beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, 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 two concrete resources ('delete a note or drawn shape'), which cleanly separates it from the additive siblings add_text_note, add_line_annotation, and add_circle_annotation. It doesn't name any sibling explicitly, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious without opening another schema.

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 a clear usage context ('Remove the old TODO note') and an explicit procedural precondition: confirm with the user before deleting. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'to modify rather than remove a note, use edit_text_note'), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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