notebook_use

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool changes session state (active notebook) and affects subsequent tool calls by auto-filling the notebook parameter. It also acknowledges that passing another value changes the active notebook. This is sufficient transparency for a state-setting tool, though it does not mention validation or error conditions.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and input format; the second explains the behavioral consequence and how to change. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, input semantics, and behavioral effects on subsequent tool usage. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, and no critical information appears missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema only provides a required string parameter 'notebook' with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying that it accepts a title, unique prefix, or ID, which is crucial for understanding what values are valid. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Fija el notebook activo' (sets the active notebook), with a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies accepted input formats (title, unique prefix, or id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_create or notebook_delete.

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 conveys when to use the tool: before other tool calls to avoid specifying the notebook parameter each time. It states that after using this tool, 'puedes omitir `notebook` en las demas tools' and that passing another notebook changes the active one, giving clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage pattern is clear.

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