delete_notebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist, cannot be open) or side effects beyond irreversibility.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with essential information. No extraneous words or rephrasing of the tool name. It is concise and well-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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action, the parameter, and the irreversible nature. The sibling tools cover other operations on notebooks, so no further context is needed.

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 schema coverage is 100% with a description for the only parameter. The description adds context by stating 'by its title or ID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. This adds value beyond the schema, but not significantly, as the schema already has a description.

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 the action (permanently delete), resource (notebook), and how to specify it (by title or ID). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_notebook, get_notebook_info, list_notebooks, open_notebook, query_notebook, and add_source, which all have different purposes.

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 implies usage for deletion but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned. The context from sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidelines.

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