delete_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the trash path and naming scheme, the non-replacing rename guarantee, indexer behavior, reindex timing, accumulation in .trash, permanent unlink irreversibility, symlink refusal, and backlink consequences. This is a model of behavioral disclosure.

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 lengthy but every sentence carries operational meaning. The core action is front-loaded, and the technical details about trash naming, rename semantics, symlink handling, and backlinks are all decision-relevant for an agent. No filler is present.

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 mutation tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, recoverability, edge cases, and post-delete effects. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. The tool can be invoked correctly and safely from this description alone.

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%, but the Args section compensates completely. path is defined as a vault-relative path to the note, and permanent is defined as 'If True, unlink instead of soft-deleting.' Both parameters are fully explained beyond their schema types.

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 opens with a clear statement of action and resource: 'Delete a note from the vault.' The detail about soft-delete vs permanent unlink reinforces what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling delete_file tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear conditional guidance: use the default soft-delete unless permanent=True is desired, and notes that write permission is required. It does not explicitly explain when to choose delete_note over delete_file or move_note, but the context is strong enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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