notebook_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds materially more: irreversibility, that the default call does NOT delete, that it returns a needs_confirmation preview of the resolved notebook, and the exact re-submission contract. This is the kind of behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and its irreversibility, then the confirmation protocol in two tight sentences. No filler; every sentence changes agent behavior.

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?

Complete for a two-parameter destructive tool: the safety profile, the irreversible consequence, the parameter semantics, and the confirmation workflow are all covered. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description still notes the preview shape.

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% (both parameters are bare), so the description carries the full burden and does: it clarifies that notebook accepts a name or ID, and fully specifies confirm's two-state behavior including the default and the required follow-up value.

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 a notebook") plus scope ("irreversible"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling notebook_list, notebook_describe, notebook_rename and notebook_create tools.

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 gives clear operational context: call with confirm=False first to get a preview, then re-submit the canonical notebook_id with confirm=True. It doesn't name a sibling alternative (e.g., when to rename vs delete), but the invocation guidance is explicit and unambiguous.

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