notebook_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature ('IRREVERSIBLE'), the confirmation requirement, and the permanent deletion outcome. This provides essential behavioral context that annotations would typically cover.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core action and warning, followed by clear parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose and risk, the second explains the confirmation requirement, and the parameter section adds essential details without redundancy.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description provides complete context: purpose, irreversible nature, confirmation requirement, parameter meanings, and user approval context. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, making this description fully adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'notebook_id: Notebook UUID' and 'confirm: Must be True after user approval.' It adds crucial semantic context about UUID format and the confirmation logic that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 states the specific action ('Delete notebook permanently') and resource ('notebook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_rename, notebook_create, and notebook_list. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Delete notebook permanently') and includes a crucial exclusion: 'Requires confirm=True' after user approval. This provides clear guidance on prerequisites and distinguishes it from tools like notebook_describe or notebook_get that don't require confirmation.

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