delete_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It indicates that deletion requires a hash to prevent blind deletes, but fails to state that deletion is irreversible, what happens to associated links or indices, or any error conditions. For a destructive tool, this is insufficient.

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 uses only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose: stating the action and key requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 37 siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, error handling, post-deletion effects (e.g., index updates), and prerequisites beyond the hash. A delete operation warrants more complete context.

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 must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'expected_hash' by linking it to 'no blind deletes', but fails to explain 'vault', 'path', or 'client_id'. Parameters like 'client_id' are completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 clearly states 'Delete a note' as the action, specifying verb and resource. Among siblings like write_note and update_frontmatter, it uniquely identifies the delete operation. The added requirement detail ('Requires write_enabled=true AND expected_hash') further clarifies the tool's 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 mentions prerequisites (write_enabled=true and expected_hash) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_note or vacuum_embeddings. The context is implied through the 'no blind deletes' safety note, but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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