delete_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (delete) and return value (confirmation), but omits important details such as whether deletion is irreversible, if there are cascading effects, permission requirements, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure for a destructive 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?

The description is concise, using a single paragraph with labeled parameter lines. It avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 operation, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks context on error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), and usage of optional parameters. An output schema is present but not detailed in the description. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the description must add meaning. It lists each parameter with a brief description (e.g., 'note_id: ID of the note to delete'), which provides basic semantics beyond just type. However, it does not explain valid combinations or relationships between optional parameters, so the added value is moderate but not rich.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a note from a task,' which is a specific verb+resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_note, edit_note, and get_task_notes. No ambiguity.

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 by stating the action, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete a note vs. delete a task). The context of sibling note tools makes it somewhat clear, but explicit when/when-not guidelines are missing.

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