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 adds value by specifying that deletion 'moves to trash', which clarifies it's not a permanent erase—a key behavioral trait beyond the basic 'delete' action. However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—just four words—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Delete' specifies the verb, 'a note' the resource, and '(moves to trash)' adds critical behavioral context without redundancy. There's no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and a key behavioral trait (moving to trash), but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens post-deletion. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but with only one required parameter and high schema coverage, this is adequate. A baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the simplicity of a single ID parameter elevates it slightly for clarity.

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'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_note' or 'update_note' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete_todo' or 'delete_workspace' in terms of resource type, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note ID from 'get_note' or 'list_notes'), error conditions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'delete_todo'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate invocation.

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