delete_notes_by_id

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

The description merely restates the destructive action already captured by the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not add behavioral context such as permanent deletion, authorization requirements, side effects, or what happens when the note does not exist. The 'id/slug' note is more of a parameter clarification than a behavioral 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 compact and front-loaded: 'Delete a note' immediately states the action, followed by the endpoint and a single parameter explanation. There is no redundant or filler content; every line contributes useful 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 delete operation, the description covers the essential details: action, resource path, and id/slug parameter. Output schema and annotations supply the remaining context (destructive, idempotent, response format). It could be more complete by explicitly stating irreversibility, but this is adequately signaled by the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the id parameter (only a 'Id' title), so the description carries the full burden. The line 'id: The id/slug of the resource' adds meaningful semantic information, clarifying that the parameter accepts either an id or a slug, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Delete a note' and includes the explicit endpoint 'DELETE /notes/{id}', which clearly identifies the action, resource, and id parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_notes_by_id, update_notes_by_id, and create_notes.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the obvious 'Delete a note.' There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over related note tools, no warning about irreversibility, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The tool's intended use is only implied by its name and HTTP verb.

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