Notebook Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantially more: the operation is irreversible, the default behavior does NOT delete, and the call returns a needs_confirmation preview. The requirement to re-submit the canonical notebook_id identifies a real behavioral constraint not expressible in the schema.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: effect and irreversibility first, then the resolution rule, then the two-step confirmation flow. No filler, and the most consequential fact (irreversible) is front-loaded.

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-value documentation isn't required, yet the description still names the needs_confirmation preview. For a 2-parameter destructive tool, everything needed to invoke it safely and correctly is present.

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 carries the full burden and does so: 'notebook' accepts a name or ID, and 'confirm' defaults to false and gates actual deletion. Both parameters gain meaning that the type-only schema lacks.

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 ('Delete a notebook') and immediately flags irreversibility. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like notebook_rename, notebook_create, and notebook_describe.

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?

Gives an explicit operational workflow: call with confirm=False to get a preview, then re-submit the canonical notebook_id with confirm=True. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it never names alternatives (e.g., notebook_list to resolve a name) or states preconditions such as required permissions.

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