Delete Note

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

Annotations already give destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful context about required permissions (author/maintainer token), which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention non-recoverability, but the destructive hint covers that.

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 with no redundancy. Every word adds value: action, resource, authorization requirement. Highly efficient.

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 description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does, on what resource, and required permissions. With no output schema, it could optionally mention the return value or success condition, but it's not critical for selecting this 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 the schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it only restates the action and authorization requirement.

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 explicitly states it deletes a comment (note) on a GitLab issue or merge request, using specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note, update_note, and get_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 authorization context (requires token of note author or maintainer) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. The usage is clear for the intended scenario.

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