Delete a lead note

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial non-annotation context: required scopes (leads:write, luca:draft), data sensitivity 'redacted', the Idempotency-Key requirement with retry behavior, and the workspace override mechanism. The only ambiguity is that it markets idempotent retries while the annotation sets idempotentHint=false, which is a mild tension rather than a real contradiction.

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 purpose is front-loaded in two tight sentences, followed by clearly grouped operational metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace). No sentence is wasted, though the scopes/scope/data-sensitivity line is a bit dense and packs three distinct facts together.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essentials an agent needs to call a destructive write correctly: auth scopes, retry safety, and workspace targeting. Only the idempotency-vs-annotation nuance and the lack of explicit alternative routing keep it short of full completeness.

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 coverage is 60% and the schema already documents workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey with descriptions that the prose largely repeats. The description maps id/noteId to the DELETE path, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the structured fields provide, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove one coach note from a lead') and scopes it precisely ('leave the rest of the timeline alone'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling luca_leads_notes_add, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

'This is how a note filed by mistake gets taken back' gives an implied use case (corrective deletion). However, it never explicitly names the alternative (e.g. luca_leads_notes_add) or states when NOT to use it, leaving the agent to infer the comparisons from the sibling list.

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