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 states 'Delete a notebook', implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Delete a notebook using the specified ID.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information given the context.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility, authentication needs, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that performs deletion, more context is needed to guide safe and correct usage, especially in a server with many sibling tools.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'using the specified ID', which might imply a parameter, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add semantic value. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a notebook'), specifying it uses 'the specified ID'. This is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebooks_delete' or 'delete_notebooks' that might exist in the list, though the name itself suggests uniqueness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook ID), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_notebooks' or 'get_notebook'. With many sibling tools present, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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