update_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the input parameters and return type, but lacks information about side effects, required permissions, error handling, or atomicity. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, listing only essential information in a structured format (Args and Returns). Every sentence is necessary, and it avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists) and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but omits context like error scenarios, idempotency, or whether partial updates are supported. An average score is fair.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by labeling each parameter (e.g., 'Notebook ID', 'Optional new name'). Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates reasonably well, but still lacks detailed syntax or constraints.

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 'Update a notebook,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_notebook, delete_notebook, and get_notebook, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and context imply it's for modifying existing notebooks, there is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. A minimal viable score is appropriate.

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