delete_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that deletion is permanent, which is a crucial destructive trait, but it does not address error behavior, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when the title does not exist. This is a minimal but not rich disclosure.

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 clear sentence with a brief Args section. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential information: the action, the permanence, and the identifying parameter. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps like error behavior remain, but they are not critical for a simple delete operation.

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 defines 'title' as 'The title of the note to delete,' which clarifies that the title is the identifier for the note to be removed. However, this largely restates the parameter name and adds no nuance about matching, case sensitivity, or uniqueness.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('note') with the key qualifier 'permanently,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note, update_note, and search_notes. The intent is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The only implicit signal is the tool name and the verb 'delete,' which does not constitute explicit usage guidance.

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