delete_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly says the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and cascades to sources, chats, and generated artifacts. It omits permissions/authorization requirements and the confirmation ceremony, though the latter is covered by the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded, with the irreversible nature placed immediately after the core action. No filler or repetition.

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, and the destructive scope is fully described. The only gap is the absence of any authorization or prerequisite context for a permanently destructive operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both notebook_id and the confirm guard, including the instruction to ask the user. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what structured fields provide, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Names a precise verb and resource ('delete_notebook') and specifies the blast radius ('everything in it', enumerated as sources, chats, and generated artifacts). This is enough to separate it from delete_source without opening either schema.

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 states no conditions for when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and never points to alternatives such as delete_source for removing a single source. It conveys only that the action is destructive, which is informational rather than guidance.

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