Source Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing a preview/dry-run mode and the requirement to echo back the preview's canonical notebook_id and source ids. It does not state what exactly is destroyed or whether it is reversible.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with the verb and resource before the workflow detail. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the terse backtick notation risks ambiguity.

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. The preview/confirm flow is covered, but the `confirm` parameter goes unexplained and the notebook_id/notebook naming discrepancy leaves ambiguity for a destructive tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 carry the full burden. It does explain the source XOR sources exclusivity and the omit-both preview mode, but it never mentions the `confirm` boolean parameter, and it refers to 'notebook_id' while the schema field is named `notebook`, creating a naming mismatch.

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 sources'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like source_read, source_rename, and source_add. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the destructive delete intent is 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?

Describes the two-phase workflow clearly: omit both id parameters to get a preview, then supply them to confirm. This tells the agent when to call the tool in each mode. It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating exclusions.

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