delete_note

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavior, and it does this well. It discloses that deletion is not permanent by default, that notes go to .trash/ following Obsidian convention, and that permanent=true causes a hard delete. This is exactly the kind of safety-relevant behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the 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 deliver the core operation, the default behavior, the exception, and the exact flag to trigger it. There is no filler, and the most critical safety information is front-loaded at the beginning.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what the tool does, what the default consequence is, and how to switch to permanent deletion. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both path and permanent, including the default value and meaning. The description adds the term 'hard delete' and restates the trash behavior, which is mildly clarifying but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a note from the vault.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_note, update_note, and read_note by saying what operation it performs, and it adds the key distinction between moving to .trash/ and permanent deletion.

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 establishes the context for use: deleting a note. It also explains the default behavior and the condition for hard deletion with permanent=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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