delete_note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: the operation is soft-delete by default and recoverable, while permanent=True is a hard delete that removes the record from SQLite. It omits secondary behavior such as permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens when the note_id does not exist.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args block is compact. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema but is justified here because the schema carries no parameter descriptions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the destructive/recoverable distinction adequately, with only minor gaps around failure modes and permissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: note_id is described as the note's UUID and permanent is explained in terms of the concrete effect of each boolean value (trash vs SQLite removal). This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema types, though it is only two parameters and the explanation is brief.

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 Sticky Note') and immediately clarifies the two operating modes (soft vs permanent). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it never names sibling tools like restore_note to sharpen the boundary between them.

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 default-to-soft-delete behavior implies the common case and hints that recoverable deletion is the norm, which loosely connects to the restore_note sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no direction toward alternatives such as restoring or updating a note instead.

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