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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally; the description adds the important irreversible consequence ('Cannot be undone') and clarifies the dual dismiss/delete behavior that annotations do not capture.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, followed by the alternative tool and endpoint. Only the raw 'DELETE /artifacts/{artifact}' path is somewhat expendable, but it is compact.

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 single-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers destructiveness, irreversibility, dual semantics, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is already documented with its sources (notebook_list_artifacts, job result). The description adds only the extra source case (a report's embedded list), which is useful but marginal over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (delete/dismiss) and resource (Studio artifact / interactive report suggested item), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the job-cancellation sibling notebook_cancel_job. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the two distinct use cases (delete an artifact vs dismiss a report's suggested item) and names the alternative tool for stopping a running job. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to delete, but the routing context is clear.

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