delete_draft_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is destructive only through the verb 'Delete', but it does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether confirmation is required, or what side effects may occur on the associated merge request or other related resources.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. While the brevity sacrifices useful context, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and every word contributes to the core 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not explain the draft-note lifecycle or the fact that draft notes belong to merge requests. Despite the schema showing merge_request_iid, the description alone does not give an agent enough context to confidently understand when and how to use this tool versus related draft-note tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters: project_id, draft_note_id, and merge_request_iid. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a draft note'), which clearly identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_wiki_page, publish_draft_note, and update_draft_note by combining the exact resource and action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publish_draft_note, bulk_publish_draft_notes, or update_draft_note. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended workflow, or exclusions, so an agent must rely entirely on naming conventions.

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