delete_notebook

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint: false, but the description explicitly warns that it 'Changes stored DeepTutor learning data' and deletes an entire notebook, which is clearly destructive. This is a direct contradiction between the structured annotation and the description. Per rubric, any contradiction yields a score of 1.

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: two sentences. The warning is front-loaded, immediately conveying the risk, followed by the clear action. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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?

The description covers the critical context for a destructive operation: it warns about data changes, instructs on when to call, and advises validation. An output schema is present, so return details are not needed. However, it does not explicitly state irreversibility or what happens after deletion, but the warning largely suffices. The main gap is the annotation contradiction, which is penalized elsewhere.

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 already documents both parameters (notebook_id and confirm) with full coverage. The description adds a caution to 'Check the target ID and values', which reinforces the importance of the confirm flag, but does not introduce new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies given the high schema 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 verb and resource: 'Delete an entire notebook'. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_notebook_record (deletes a record within a notebook) and delete_reading_annotation, making the scope unambiguous. The warning also clarifies it is a whole-notebook operation.

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 explicitly instructs to 'call only when the learner explicitly requests this action', which provides a clear condition for use. It does not name alternatives, but the scope (entire notebook) implicitly differentiates it from record-level deletion tools. It also advises checking the target ID and values, reinforcing careful usage.

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