Deletes a paragraph from an Apache Zeppelin notebook and automatically backs up its content before removal.
Delete a paragraph. Its content is automatically backed up before deletion.
Args:
notebook_id: The notebook ID containing the paragraph
paragraph_id: The paragraph ID to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| paragraph_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful non-obvious detail: content is automatically backed up before deletion, though it does not discuss permissions or backup retention.
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?
It is front-loaded and compact: one sentence for the operation, one for the backup behavior, then a short Args block. Every part contributes useful information, especially given the schema has no descriptions.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the operation, backup behavior, and both parameters, leaving only usage alternatives unaddressed.
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 is the only parameter documentation. It identifies both parameters and gives brief meaning, but does not specify ID formats, validation, or whether notebook_id must correspond to the paragraph's actual notebook.
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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Delete a paragraph,' which is immediately distinguishable from siblings such as batch_delete_paragraph and update_paragraph. The singular scope is clear without needing to open the schema.
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?
It does not say when to use this tool versus batch_delete_paragraph or other alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the operation name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.