delete_noteDeletes a team note whose text contains a specified string, helping employers correct mistaken notes in the Jobinja employer panel; only notes deletable there are affected.
Delete one team note whose text contains text_contains (e.g. to fix a mistaken note). Only notes you can delete in the panel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | ||
| page_hint | No | ||
| applicant_id | Yes | ||
| text_contains | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that deletion is scoped to a single note and limited to deletable ones, but omits critical behavior for a substring-matched deletion: what happens if several notes contain the text, if none do, or whether the match is case-sensitive. No contradiction with the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and target, with the matching predicate and scope limit following immediately. Nothing is wasted.
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?
This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, and the description does not say what is returned, how ambiguity (multiple or zero matches) is handled, or what `page_hint` does. For a delete tool, those omissions are significant.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only explains `text_contains` (substring match). `post`, `applicant_id`, and especially `page_hint` — which likely determines which page of notes is searched and thus whether the call succeeds — are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one team note') and narrows the target via a matching predicate (`text_contains`), which clearly separates it from the additive sibling add_note. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious.
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 parenthetical 'e.g. to fix a mistaken note' gives one concrete use case, and 'Only notes you can delete in the panel' implies a permission/scope limit. There is no guidance on when not to use it, how to discover the right note first (e.g. via list/get tools), or what to do if multiple notes match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.