delete_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: the note is removed from the filesystem and search index, but remains recoverable via git history. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the side effects. It does not mention potential error conditions or authentication requirements, but for a simple delete, the core behavior is transparent.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line action and effect, followed by a clear Args section and a minimal Returns line. No redundant information.

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 delete operation, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the effects (filesystem, index, git recovery), and a return status. It does not elaborate on error handling or the exact return format, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 provides only 'string' with title 'Note Id', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that note_id is a 'Note UUID string', clarifying the expected format and meaning. This is valuable guidance beyond the schema.

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 the target resource (a note). It also specifies the effect: removed from filesystem and search index, while remaining recoverable from git history. This distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_fact or delete_glossary_entry.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, idempotency, or cases where other tools (like update_note or read_note) might be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does.

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