upnote_open_notebook

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the primary action and does not say whether the notebook must already exist, whether opening creates anything, what happens on a missing title, or whether the operation has side effects.

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?

A single sentence of ten words that front-loads the action and object with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes necessary information.

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 tool is simple and the description covers purpose and the one parameter, so an agent can make a plausible call. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of failure behavior, exact-title requirements, and relationship to sibling tools leaves clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the phrase 'by title' gives meaning to the sole required parameter 'notebook' — it is the notebook's title rather than an ID or object. The description does not specify exact-match behavior or format, but for a single string parameter it provides enough semantic grounding.

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 states a specific action ('Open'), a specific resource ('a notebook in the UpNote app'), and the selection method ('by title'). The resource term clearly distinguishes it from the sibling upnote_open_note, which handles notes rather than notebooks.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is for notebooks rather than notes; it never says to use list_notebooks to resolve titles or open_note for notes.

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