Delete Note

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses critical behavior: irreversibility unless git history exists, immediate search-index updates for .md files, and no index update for attachments. This adds substantial context about side effects and recovery options. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 four compact sentences: first states the action and object, then differentiates .md behavior from attachments, then gives irreversibility and confirmation warnings. No filler or repetition; the most important warning is placed last for emphasis.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what is deleted, index implications, what not to do afterward, irreversibility, and a user-confirmation requirement. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool safely and 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 description coverage is 100%, so path and if_match are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only user-confirmation guidance about the path, which is more of a usage rule than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when structured schema handles parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a document or attachment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read, write, edit, append, and rename by naming the destructive action and the object types. The title 'Delete Note' further reinforces the tool's role.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: after deleting .md files, 'do not call reindex afterward' — an instruction that prevents an unnecessary follow-up action. It also states a precondition that the path must be confirmed with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the destructive-purpose distinction is clear among the sibling list.

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