notebook_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool always creates a fresh notebook (non‑idempotent) and explains the surprising behavior that the provided title is ignored until sources are added, resulting in an untitled notebook. It also mentions the return format, giving a clear expectation of side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and return value. The second paragraph adds necessary nuance about the RPC behavior and title handling. The RPC name ('CCqFvf') is slightly extra but not excessive; overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a simple creation tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the notable title quirk. Though it lacks explicit notes on prerequisites or errors, the tool is simple enough that the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 compensates by explaining the only parameter, title. It clearly states that title is accepted but not used directly—the notebook will auto‑title later. This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain type/default information.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a brand-new, empty notebook.' It also states the return shape ({ id, title, url }), which further clarifies the tool's purpose. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_list, notebook_delete, and notebook_query.

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?

The description provides usage context by contrasting this tool with the idempotent 'get recent draft' endpoint, indicating when to use this non‑idempotent creation method. However, it doesn't explicitly address when to choose this over the listed sibling tools, though the purpose itself makes that fairly obvious.

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