create-onenote-notebook

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and the description's "create" claim is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds the uniqueness constraint and required body shape as useful behavioral context, but contributes little beyond the annotations beyond that.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the whole text is short, but the TIP line redundantly restates "Creates a new OneNote notebook" before delivering the body and uniqueness details. The redundancy costs it a higher score.

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?

Given a large nested schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly (creates a notebook with a displayName), but it omits response expectations, error behavior on name collision, and the confirm-gate semantics that appear in the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including body.displayName. The description adds a helpful shorthand (Body: { displayName: 'Notebook Name' }) that clarifies the single required field, but doesn't go beyond what the schema provides for the rest.

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?

"Create a new OneNote notebook" names a specific verb and resource, making it distinguishable from siblings like create-onenote-page and create-onenote-section. However, the TIP line repeats the same purpose verbatim rather than refining the scope, so it earns points for clarity but not full distinctiveness.

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 gives a practical usage note — the name must be unique across the user's notebooks — which helps the agent avoid a failed call. But it never routes to alternatives (e.g., create-onenote-section for working inside a notebook) nor states when not to use the tool, leaving selection to inference.

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