Delete note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds valuable context by distinguishing between the reversible trash action and the irreversible permanent deletion, explicitly warning that permanent deletion cannot be undone. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that captures both behaviors with no extraneous words. It is optimally concise and readable.

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?

The tool has a simple interface with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description, combined with annotations and schema, gives the agent everything needed to call the tool correctly. It could optionally mention that the note must exist or that trash is reversible, but the schema covers the id, and the irreversibility warning is sufficient.

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 both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description restates the two modes but adds little beyond the schema's own explanation of the permanent parameter. The description does not introduce any new semantic details about note_id or permanent beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a Google Keep note to the trash, or delete it permanently.' It clearly distinguishes the two deletion modes and is unambiguous about what the tool does. The sibling list_notes is obviously for listing, so there is no confusion about purpose.

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 clearly implies this tool is for deleting notes, and the sibling list_notes is for retrieval, so the alternative is obvious. The schema reinforces the workflow by noting note_id comes from list_notes. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or conditional guidance beyond the two modes, which are explained in the parameter descriptions.

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