create_notebook

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool sets the active notebook for subsequent execute_code calls, which is an important side effect. However, it does not mention potential issues like title uniqueness, session management, or return value expectations, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and then provides usage and context. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more 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?

The tool has moderate complexity with side effects, and the description covers the creation and side effect but omits parameter details and return value information (despite an output schema). More context about results would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (title, session_id). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states 'Create a new empty notebook,' providing a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting that this tool sets the active notebook for subsequent execute_code calls, which differentiates it from other notebook-related tools.

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 says 'Use when the user explicitly asks for a NEW notebook' and contrasts with 'execute_code(style="notebook")' for reusing the current notebook, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a sibling reference.

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