메모 삭제

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes a note, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to stating the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like safety warnings, usage conditions, or behavioral details. For a delete operation with no annotation support, more information is needed to adequately guide an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as '삭제할 메모의 ID' (ID of the note to delete). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '메모를 삭제합니다' (Deletes a note) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'delete_note' in Korean. It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (note) but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'create_note' beyond the obvious action. The purpose is clear but lacks any distinguishing detail beyond the name itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_note' for modifications. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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