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 and does so well. It discloses that the operation is a move to .trash, not a permanent delete, that restoration is possible, that folders are refused, and that empty folders are auto-removed. This goes far beyond a simple 'delete' statement and gives the agent important behavioral expectations.

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 concise sentences, each adding essential information: the core action, the non-destructive nature, and the folder-handling behavior. No redundant phrasing, and the most important information is front-loaded. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational details: the .trash destination, restorability, folder refusal, and auto-cleanup of empty folders. It does not specify error behavior or the return value, but the critical success and failure conditions for calling this tool are adequately covered. A small gap remains around what happens if the path doesn't exist or isn't a note.

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?

The schema already describes 'path' as a 'Vault-relative note path' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Folders are refused', clarifying that the path must reference a note and not a folder. This semantic constraint is not present in the schema, raising the score to 4.

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 specific action: 'Move a note to the vault's .trash folder', clearly identifying the resource and the operation. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a permanent delete with 'NEVER a permanent delete', removing ambiguity. This is a clear, non-tautological definition that differentiates from sibling tools like move_note and create_note.

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 when to use the tool (to soft-delete a note) and explicitly excludes folders with 'Folders are refused'. However, it does not name any sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance relative to tools like move_note. The usage context is clear but the distinction from alternatives is left to inference.

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