delete_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a soft delete (not erased), a 30-day retention window, and that undo restores it. It omits what happens after 30 days (permanent removal) and any permission/auth requirements, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the reversibility caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics including reversibility and retention. It leaves only minor gaps: the fate of the note after 30 days and the id's expected format.

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%, so the description should compensate but does not mention the single 'id' parameter at all. The parameter name and type are self-evident, but there is no hint about its format or whether it is a note identifier versus a title, leaving a modest gap.

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 ('Move a note to Recently Deleted'), and the framing immediately distinguishes it from sibling note tools like move_note, read_note, and create_note. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Move a note to Recently Deleted' plus the retention note, so an agent can infer this is the delete path for notes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives (e.g., how it relates to move_note for relocating vs deleting), leaving selection to inference.

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