delete_note

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals critical behavior: the default action is non-permanent (trash) and reversible, and only permanent deletion requires an explicit flag. It also discloses recoverability. This transparency is essential for an agent deciding whether to call this tool and mitigates risk, going well beyond what the annotation already provides.

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 at two sentences, with the action verb first and the most important behavioral nuance immediately following. Every word contributes value, and the sentence structure flows from the core action to the key conditional. No fluff 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?

For a tool with three parameters and one required field, the description covers the essential behavior (delete, default trash, permanent override) and confirms reversibility. It does not mention error handling for missing paths or concurrency, but given the schema and annotations, the definition is complete for an agent to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description needn't add parameter details. The description's mention of 'pass permanent: true' restates the schema without adding new meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not elevate it further.

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 'Delete a note', which is a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies the default trash behavior and the permanent deletion option. This distinguishes it from siblings like move_note or patch_note, which are about modifying instead of removing. The tool's purpose is unambiguous and immediately scoped.

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 on how deletion works by default (to trash) and how to override it, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like move_note or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for reorganization). This is a slight gap in otherwise clear guidance.

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