delete_note

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

While annotations already mark the tool as destructive, the description adds important behavioral nuance: the default moves the note to .trash, restore/empty must happen outside the tool ecosystem, and permanent=true triggers an irreversible hard delete. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives an agent the full safety picture needed to call the tool responsibly.

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 with the core action, then uses a parenthetical to convey the default behavior and a clear conditional for the permanent flag. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With only two simple parameters Validity check. The description explains the default vs permanent behavior, the recoverability tradeoff, and the lack of in-tool restore options. No critical invocation details are missing; the description provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly and safely.

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 does explain the permanent parameter clearly: default false moves to trash, true is irreversible. The path parameter is not explicitly formatted, but the tool name and 'Delete a note' make its purpose obvious. The description adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though path specifics could be slightly richer.

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 clear, specific action ('Delete a note.') and immediately distinguishes the behavior from a simple destructive operation by explaining the default trash behavior and permanent hard delete option. This makes it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like move_note or create_note.

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 provides clear context: deleting a note should use this tool, and the permanent flag controls whether the deletion is recoverable. It also explicitly warns that no other tool can restore or empty trashed notes, which helps an agent understand the workflow limits. It does not explicitly compare against a non-existent sibling delete tool, but the guidance is strong.

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