cell_delete

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

The description confirms the destructive nature implied by annotations ('delete'). However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true). The description does not elaborate on side effects or irreversibility.

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 front-load the action and prerequisite. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the simple tool (two params, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it omits explanation of the 'name' parameter, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meaning. It only mentions that notebook_get provides cell IDs, but does not clarify the 'name' parameter or specify that 'cell_id' is a string ID. This leaves ambiguity about required inputs.

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 action ('Delete a cell'), the resource ('from a notebook'), and the method ('by its cell ID'). This verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like cell_add or cell_update.

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 provides a helpful prerequisite: 'Use notebook_get to find cell IDs.' This guides the agent on prior steps, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to similar mutation tools like cell_move.

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