onenote_delete_notebook

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that the operation is highly destructive, requires user confirmation, is recoverable via recycle bin by default, and that permanent:true erases permanently. This is rich context directly relevant to a dangerous 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and severity, then the key safety and recovery details. No wasted words.

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?

Covers all critical facets for a destructive delete: user confirmation, default recovery, permanent override, and the required ID. Given no output schema and good annotations, this description is complete and self-sufficient.

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. The description additionally explains the effect of permanent:true ('erases'), extending the schema's 'Erase permanently' with behavioral context, and clarifies recovery default. This adds value beyond the schema–hence a 4.

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 clearly 'Delete/close a whole notebook' with a specific verb and resource, distinct from sibling delete_page/delete_section tools. The additional warning 'Highly destructive' reinforces the action's scope.

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 explicit instruction to confirm the notebook ID with the user, and clarifies recoverable vs permanent behavior, which guides when to use the permanent flag. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when to avoid this tool in favor of sibling tools.

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