Notebook Delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the safety burden. It discloses that the operation is permanent and irreversible and adds the guardrail that confirmation is mandatory. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a destructive mutation tool, despite not enumerating every possible side effect.

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 three short clauses with no filler, and the most important safety facts (permanent, irreversible, confirmation) are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description plus the fully documented schema and output schema leave the agent with everything it needs: the target ID, the confirmation requirement, and the irreversibility warning. No critical context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Requires confirm=True' restates the schema's own 'Must be True after user approval' without adding new syntactical or semantic detail about notebook_id.

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 uses a concrete verb and object ('Delete notebook') plus the critical modifier 'permanently,' making the destructive scope unmistakable. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like notebook_rename and notebook_describe, which do not destroy the notebook.

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 text gives clear context: this tool exists for permanent deletion, and it explicitly states the precondition 'Requires confirm=True.' It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the semantics and sibling names make the correct usage obvious.

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