Delete Obsidian Note

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

While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical context by explicitly warning 'This action cannot be undone' and stating 'The note file will be removed from the filesystem.' This goes beyond the annotation to clarify permanence and the filesystem impact, which is valuable for an AI agent. There is no contradiction with the idempotentHint or readOnlyHint.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences that immediately state the action and the critical warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: permanence and filesystem removal. It could add details about behavior when the path doesn't exist, but that is a minor edge case. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'path' as 'Relative path to the note to delete' (100% coverage). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the schema baseline. However, the schema itself is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Permanently delete a note from the vault.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and identifies the resource (note), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read, write, or search. This leaves no ambiguity about the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., that the path must exist) or exclusion conditions. It only states what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent.

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