update_notebook

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing read-modify-write semantics (section list read just before the write and rewritten in full), the exact side effect of removal (sectionId nulled on affected pages), and a stability caveat about undocumented experimental endpoints matched to app 1.71. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers constraints and mechanics efficiently in five short sentences with no filler. The endpoint/version sentence is dense but justified as a stability warning, so it earns its place.

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 the description covers the mutation semantics, refusal condition, side effects, and reliability caveat. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: the refusal condition constrains title, and the full-rewrite / null-out behavior explains how sections_add, sections_delete, and sections_rename interact. Only the id format and object shape are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource: rename a notebook or change its sections, and scopes the rename to standalone notebooks. It does not name any sibling tool (e.g. update_notebook_page) to route the agent, but the standalone-vs-project distinction makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not: renaming is refused on a notebook that belongs to a project or category, with the rationale. It does not name alternative tools an agent should consider, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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