notebook_create

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

Annotations provide basic non-read-only hint, but description adds value by revealing automatic extension handling and return of name/path. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior or error conditions, which are minor omissions.

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 three concise sentences covering creation, extension behavior, and return value. No redundant words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and return info. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or existence checks, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining the name parameter's extension handling. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. No details on validation or constraints, but adequate for a single parameter.

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 'Create' and the resource 'Jupyter notebook (.ipynb)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_delete, notebook_get, etc., by specifying creation. The detail about automatic .ipynb extension addition further clarifies purpose.

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 implies usage for creating notebooks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_as_script or notebook_execute_all. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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