Delete note.com note

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation is destructive, which is useful, but it does not explain consequences like permanence, authorization requirements, or what happens to associated data. Adding details about irreversibility or required permissions would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase contributes to understanding the purpose and cautions, making it highly efficient.

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 1-parameter delete operation, the description covers the core purpose and destructive nature. However, it could be more complete by explaining the distinction between 'published' and 'deleted-capable' notes and whether deletion is permanent. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only references 'note key' without explaining what it is, how to obtain it, or its format beyond the schema's minLength. The description adds no meaningful value over the schema, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Deletes'), the resource ('a published or deleted-capable note'), and the specific endpoint ('DELETE /v1/notes/n/{noteKey}'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like note_delete_draft, which deletes drafts rather than published notes.

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 usage context by warning that it is destructive and should only be used when the caller explicitly wants deletion. However, it does not mention alternatives or conditions when a different tool (e.g., note_delete_draft) would be more appropriate, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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