delete_draft_note

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, so the description adds value by stating irreversibility, permission requirements, and specific error responses (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit). This goes beyond the annotation by detailing consequences and failure modes, though it does not describe effects on related data.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary warnings and usage context. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds relevant guidance. It could be trimmed, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

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, irreversible operation, the description covers verification, permissions, error modes, and parameter formatting. There is no output schema, so return values need not be described. All essential guidance for safe and correct invocation is present, making it sufficiently complete.

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 fully documents all three required parameters. The description adds a redundant note about providing numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths, which is already in the schema. No new meaning beyond the schema is introduced, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb + resource: 'Delete a draft note.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from inspection operations by instructing to 'choose a get or list tool first', which differentiates it from siblings like get_draft_note and list_draft_notes. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use this only after verifying the target' and directs to alternative tools for inspection. It also mentions the need for permissions and possible error types, providing a clear context for when and how to use it.

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