notebook_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that attachment writes to `.agents/notebook.json` and that aliases allow multiple notebooks to be registered, but it omits auth requirements, overwrite or alias-collision behavior, and what the `engine`, `active_source_ids`, or `workspace_dir` parameters affect.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and the alias example earns its place. It is efficient but somewhat sparse for a seven-parameter mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a seven-parameter, unannotated state-changing tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: most parameters and key behavioral details are 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 0%, so the description must compensate for seven parameters. It explains only `alias` meaningfully, with examples, and implies `notebook_id`, but leaves `title`, `engine`, `workspace_dir`, `active_source_ids`, and `gcp_project_number` entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: attach a Gemini Notebook to the active workspace, and names the backing file `.agents/notebook.json`. It is clear enough to distinguish from create/get/list siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: register a notebook in the active workspace, optionally with an alias for multiple notebooks. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus notebook_create, notebook_get, or notebook_invoke, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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