Delete a note from a JSM alert

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-readonly, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: there is no undo, no confirmation step at the API, the operation is synchronous, the API returns 204 with no body, no requestId is available, and a separate delete:ops-alert grant is required. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 longer than average, but it is well-structured into purpose, args, returns, safety warning, synchronous behavior, and permissions. Every section carries important information for a destructive operation, though some statements like 'There is no undo' and 'The note is gone the moment this returns' are mildly redundant.

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 mutation with sensitive side effects, the description covers return shape, error/permission context, synchronous behavior, and user-confirmation expectations. Nothing needed to safely call this tool is missing, especially given the annotations also flag destructiveness.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful emphasis that alert_id must be the full id and not the tinyId, and that note_id should come from jsm_list_alert_notes, which reinforces the correct source without inventing new semantics.

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 states a specific action and resource: permanently remove a note from a JSM alert's timeline. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling jsm_update_alert_note by explicitly saying that correction is not this 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: only for notes that should never have been written, such as pasted credentials or personal information. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use directive by naming jsm_update_alert_note as the alternative for notes that merely turned out to be wrong, plus a strong instruction to confirm with the user and quote the note before deletion.

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