Delete Note

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals important side effects: .md deletions queue an index refresh, attachments do not, and deletion is irreversible unless git history exists. It also instructs the agent to confirm the path with the user, adding meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with a clear one-sentence summary. Every sentence earns its place: resource scope, index-refresh behavior, irreversibility, and user confirmation are all stated without redundancy.

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 a full output schema and detailed annotations, the description supplies all essential context: what is deleted, side effects on the index, irreversibility, and the required confirmation step. The if_match concurrency behavior is already covered by the schema, so no critical guidance is missing.

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 the schema already thoroughly documents both 'path' and 'if_match', including optimistic concurrency semantics. The description reinforces the relative-path convention and the confirmation requirement but does not add significant new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Permanently delete a document or attachment', naming both the action and the specific resource types. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit, write, and rename by focusing on destructive deletion with a clear scope.

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 clear context for use: it is destructive, irreversible, and requires user confirmation before calling. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusion cases, but the conditional handling of .md documents vs attachments provides practical guidance on when the tool behaves differently.

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