Delete Cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects dependent cells. It adds little beyond the operation name.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though for a destructive operation it could benefit from one more sentence of context without becoming verbose.

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 a destructive tool with no annotations, no stated reversibility or permissions, and alternatives among siblings, the description is insufficiently complete. While the output schema exists and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the lack of any behavioral or safety context leaves an agent without critical information for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (cell_id, server_url, session_id) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or formats. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Delete an existing cell from the notebook.' It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like edit_cell or create_cell beyond the obvious verb, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_cell or create_cell. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers mentioned. It only states the action, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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