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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial beyond-annotation detail that the deletion cascades to sources, notes, chat history and Studio artifacts and cannot be undone. It does not mention any auth requirements or confirm the idempotentHint behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and irreversibility, then the alternative tools, then the endpoint. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers impact scope, irreversibility, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's id format is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not restate it. The trailing 'DELETE /notebooks/{notebook}' adds mild mapping context but no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource (permanently delete a notebook) and immediately enumerates the cascade scope: sources, notes, chat history and Studio artifacts. It also names the narrower sibling deletes, so an agent can distinguish whole-notebook deletion from single-item deletion without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'To remove one item instead use notebook_delete_source, notebook_delete_note or notebook_delete_artifact.' It both states when to use this tool (whole-notebook removal) and when to pick alternatives.

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