Delete note.com draft

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the action 'deletes' but does not disclose potential side effects such as permanence, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The only additional behavior disclosed is the id format, which is more of a parameter constraint.

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, with two sentences that each add value: the first states the action and endpoint, the second provides critical id constraints and sources. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description provides the endpoint, id format, and id sources, which is sufficient for correct use. It lacks an explicit note on irreversibility or return value, but these are not critical for a straightforward delete operation.

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 a generic string parameter, but the description compensates significantly by specifying that the id must be numeric, that note keys like 'n...' are not accepted, and by pointing to exact sources for valid ids. This is essential for correct invocation and goes well 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 tool deletes a note.com draft, includes the specific endpoint, and differentiates from the sibling tool note_delete_note by focusing on drafts rather than published notes. The action, resource, and scope are all precise.

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 context is clear: this tool is for deleting drafts, not published notes. It also provides guidance on obtaining the correct numeric id from other tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like note_delete_note, so it falls short of a 5.

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