delete_merge_request_note

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable context: dangerous irreversibility ('may be irreversible'), permission requirements, and specific error types (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit). This goes beyond the simple destructive flag and helps the agent set expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by caution and usage rules. It is free of fluff, and every sentence earns its place by conveying essential operational or safety information.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it (and not), permissions, irreversibility, and error handling. It doesn't describe the return value, but with no output schema that is not required. The mention of pagination fields is slightly incongruous since the schema has none, but it does not harm completeness.

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% coverage with each parameter described ('The ID of a thread note', etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning, only a generic reminder to provide numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths exactly as documented, which merely echoes the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Delete an existing merge request note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request_note (read) and create_merge_request_note (create). The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using get or list tools first when inspection is needed, which frames when not to use this tool. It also mentions verifying the target before deletion, providing clear conditional guidance. It doesn't name specific alternatives like delete_merge_request_discussion_note, but the cautionary context is sufficient.

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