colab_notebook_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: deletion is a reversible move to .colab-mcp-trash/ rather than a hard delete, which is genuinely useful safety context. However it omits what happens on a nonexistent path, whether the notebook must be closed/unsaved changes are handled, or what the trash directory lifecycle is.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and parenthetically disambiguates the destructive semantics. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and for a one-parameter soft-delete tool the core behavior is covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented single parameter, which is the only thing an agent could get wrong.

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% and the single 'path' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It implies the path refers to a local notebook inside the working directory, which is partial help, but it gives no format, relative-vs-absolute guidance, or example.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (local notebook) and immediately clarifies the mechanism as a move to trash. It is distinguishable from colab_notebook_delete_cell and colab_local_cleanup by the 'notebook' + 'local' scoping, though it never names which sibling to prefer over it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus colab_rm (which presumably deletes files) or colab_local_cleanup (which presumably purges local footprint). The agent must infer the boundary from the phrase 'local notebook' alone, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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