Delete one or more Gemini Notebooks using GCP v1alpha batchDelete or an RPC bridge. Remove multiple notebooks in a single call when cleaning up or reorganizing your workspace.
Delete one or more Gemini Notebooks via GCP v1alpha batchDelete or RPC bridge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | auto | |
| notebook_ids | Yes | ||
| workspace_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It names the backend mechanism ('v1alpha batchDelete or RPC bridge') but says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on sources/notes, required permissions, or batch partial-failure semantics. The implementation detail adds little for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no padding. The trailing backend-mechanism clause is the only part that doesn't clearly earn its place.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a destructive multi-delete tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is substantially under-specified. Nothing tells an agent about safety, scope of deletion, or the meaning of the two optional parameters.
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 three parameters exist, yet the description only indirectly implies notebook_ids. The 'engine' parameter (default 'auto', presumably selecting batchDelete vs RPC bridge) and 'workspace_dir' are completely undocumented in both schema and prose, leaving an agent to guess their semantics.
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: 'Delete one or more Gemini Notebooks.' The batch scope ('one or more') separates it from single-resource operations and from notebook_delete_sources, which acts on sources rather than notebooks. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus notebook_delete_sources or notebook_list/notebook_get for verification. No prerequisites, no cautions, no mention of what happens when some IDs in the batch are invalid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.