delete_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description only restates the mutation with no added behavioral context. It omits whether deletion is permanent, whether it can be undone (an 'undo' sibling exists), or any confirmation/permission requirements expected of a destructive 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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-parameter tool, though its brevity comes at the cost of any useful guidance.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description should at least indicate irreversibility or recoverability (undo, trash). It provides no such context, so an agent cannot judge the risk or expected outcome of the call.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema as 'The note's id from find_notes'. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a saved note'), which is unambiguous against most siblings. However, with many delete_* siblings (delete_sound, delete_marker, delete_midi_notes, delete_item), it does not clarify that this targets a saved text note rather than MIDI notes — the 'saved' qualifier hints at this but does not route the agent explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites. It never distinguishes itself from delete_midi_notes or delete_marker, nor does it mention that note ids come from find_notes/save_note, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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