notebook_delete_sources

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

The description signals mutation but does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether missing or invalid source_ids cause partial failure, or how engine 'auto' selects a backend. With no annotations to carry the destructiveHint or readOnlyHint signals, the description carries the full burden and falls well short.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is a result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 destructive, unannotated tool with four undocumented parameters, an agent lacks sufficient information to call it safely or correctly in varied contexts.

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; it only hints that source_ids is a list ('one or more'). It says nothing about engine ('auto'), notebook_id, or workspace_dir, leaving three of four parameters with no semantic context anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one or more sources from a Gemini Notebook'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from notebook_delete (notebook-level) and notebook_add_source, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It states no when-to-use context, no alternative tool for removing content, and no prerequisites. There is also no guidance on which of notebook_delete vs notebook_delete_sources to pick when a whole notebook should go.

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