update_notebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: partial updates and the top-level move behavior via empty string. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility, which would be important for an update operation.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information, with no fluff or repetition.

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 description is complete for a simple update tool: it covers the parameters, partial-update behavior, and the special parent_id case. An output schema exists, so return values are already. It doesn't explicitly state that notebook_id is required, but that is evident from the schema. It is slightly lacking in not mentioning error conditions, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains each parameter's purpose (notebook_id, title, parent_id) and adds critical semantics like using an empty string for parent_id to move to top level. This goes far beyond the bare schema which only lists types and defaults.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Rename and/or move a notebook.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_notebook, list_notebooks, and delete_notebook, which have obviously different functions.

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 clear context for usage by explaining the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields provided are changed') and the special empty-string case for parent_id. It implicitly indicates this is for editing existing notebooks, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives.

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