delete_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency. The description adds behavior beyond that: the write_enabled gate and the mandatory expected_hash concurrency guard, which tells the agent this is a guarded, non-blind delete. It could still say what happens on hash mismatch, but the added context is substantive.

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, action stated first, preconditions immediately after. No filler and nothing buried.

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 tool with no output schema, the key facts an agent needs — the write gate and the required hash — are present. Missing details are secondary: failure behavior on hash mismatch and confirmation that deletion is irreversible.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains why expected_hash exists (prevents blind deletes) but never defines vault, path, or client_id, and even references write_enabled, which is not a parameter in the schema at all. Compensation is only partial.

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 ('Delete a note'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like write_note or update_frontmatter. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of the top tier.

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?

Explicitly states preconditions for use: write_enabled=true and expected_hash required, with the constraint 'no blind deletes'. That is clear context and effectively an exclusion (you cannot delete without knowing the current hash), though it does not route the agent to any alternative tool.

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