delete_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-destructive default (trash/recoverable), the destructive permanent path, and the recovery mechanism. This is strong transparency for a deletion tool.

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 sentences, zero waste. Every clause earns its place, starting with the core action and immediately adding the critical recoverability nuance and permanent override.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is appropriately complete. It explains the behavioral consequence of the operation and the escape hatch for permanent deletion. A minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens when deleting a non-existent path, but this is a small omission for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both params (path, permanent) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds modest value by explaining the recovery behavior tied to the permanent flag, but it largely restates what the schema's descriptions already convey.

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?

Description clearly states verb+resource ('Delete a note') and distinguishes a key behavioral nuance (default .trash/ move vs permanent removal). Differentiates from siblings like move_note by clarifying the deletion path and the permanent option.

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 clearly explains the default behavior (moved to .trash/, recoverable) and when to pass permanent: true. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs alternatives, but the delete-vs-move distinction is implied well enough through the recoverability note.

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