notes_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. It does disclose that the operation is destructive and that confirm=true and a reason are required, which is valuable safety context. Yet it does not state whether deletion is permanent, what side effects occur, or whether special permissions are needed.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and destructive nature, then states the key requirement, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential safety context: deletion, confirm=true, and reason. It is minimally viable but lacks detail about deletion permanence, side effects, or authorization requirements, leaving clear gaps.

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. It adds the important qualifier that confirm must be true, and it notes that reason is required. However, it does not explain what the reason should capture or what note_id refers to, leaving part of the parameter semantics to inference.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Delete a note' and explicitly flags it as destructive. It is unambiguous about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like notes_delete_folder or notes_update_note.

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 implies the tool is used when a note needs to be deleted and communicates the required preconditions of confirm=true and a reason. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or reversibility.

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