notes_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: permanent removal, irrevocability, and association scope. It clearly states 'cannot be undone' and 'cannot be recovered', leaving no ambiguity.

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, well-structured with a clear hierarchy: summary, workflow tips, and common use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, behavior, prerequisites, and examples comprehensively. An agent has all necessary information to select and invoke correctly.

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% with a clear description for the single 'id' parameter. The description adds an example usage '{ "id": 123 }' but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a note from Pipedrive' with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like notes_create and notes_delete_comment by focusing on note deletion and emphasizing permanence.

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?

Workflow tips warn about irreversibility and recommend verification with notes_get first. Common use cases are provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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