delete_notes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavior: it deletes by onset-order indices, renumbers remaining notes, and is one undo step. This reveals side effects and reversibility, exceeding typical tool descriptions.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and source; the second covers the crucial side effects. Everything earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential context for a delete operation: how to get indices, the renumbering side effect, and undo behavior. For a 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, this is complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical semantic that indexes are on-order indices from get_notes, but this is a minor contextual addition beyond what the schema already documents. No significant parameter meaning is added.

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 states the exact action ('Delete notes'), specifies the resource ('notes by their current onset-order indices'), and ties it to a data source ('from get_notes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_notes or insert_notes.

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?

It provides clear usage context: indices come from get_notes, and the tool should be re-read with get_notes after deletion due to renumbering. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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