Delete contact note

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already communicates that this operation is destructive, so the description's 'Destructive.' adds little beyond the structured data. It does clarify that the note is deleted 'from a contact,' which helps scope the side effect, but it does not disclose further details such as irreversibility or cascading effects.

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 extremely concise: one action sentence plus a one-word destructive warning. There is no fluff, and the key information appears first.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with annotations already conveying destructive and idempotency hints, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not provide guidance on sourcing the IDs, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must convey parameter meaning, and it does: 'a note' maps to noteId and 'from a contact' maps to contactId. It does not explain how to obtain valid IDs or whether contactId must be the note's owning contact, but the basic semantic roles are clear.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a note from a contact.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools such as ghl_delete_contact and ghl_delete_appointment, which target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to delete a note belonging to a contact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific phrasing provides enough guidance given the sibling set.

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