notebook_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that deletion cascades to sources, chunks, and vectors, which is critical for an agent to understand the destructive scope. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or other side effects, keeping it below a perfect score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object, then adds the cascade detail. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and structurally clear.

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 captures the core effect (cascade deletion) but lacks context such as when deletion is appropriate, whether it is reversible, or any confirmation steps. Given the destructive nature and absence of an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to act safely.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter notebook_id. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type; it does not explain how to find the notebook_id or any format expectations. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 identifies the action ('Delete'), the target resource ('a notebook'), and the cascading scope ('and all its sources, chunks, and vectors'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_create or source_delete by specifying the full recursive deletion behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as source_delete for deleting individual sources. The description implies usage for deleting entire notebooks but does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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