delete_note

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), yet the description adds real behavior: optimistic concurrency via a fresh expectedRevision, refusal on shared notes, and recovery semantics (IDs may remain readable in Recently Deleted), plus a non-retry directive for a non-idempotent destructive call. This is meaningful context an agent cannot derive from the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, verb-first, with the destructive action front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('Notes manages deletion and recovery') costs a little clarity but no sentence is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining essentials for a destructive mutation: concurrency precondition, failure case, recovery path, and retry policy. Only the exact conflict/failure response behavior is left implicit.

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 0%, so all three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds concurrency meaning to expectedRevision ('fresh'), which implies a stale-revision rejection, but says nothing about accountId or noteId beyond their names. Partial compensation warrants the baseline 3.

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+resource ('DELETE one note') with scope ('one'), which clearly separates it from sibling delete_folder. It does not explicitly name or contrast against any sibling tool, but the resource noun makes the distinction unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('Shared notes are refused') and an operational rule ('Never automatically retry'), which tells the agent both when this call fails and how not to handle that failure. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the shared-note case.

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