Create a OneNote notebook

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds some useful context by saying the notebook is created 'for the signed-in user' and that it is a 'new' notebook, which aligns with the non-idempotent hint. It does not elaborate on duplicate-name behavior or rate limits, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter context rather than being a model of efficient completeness.

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 one-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides the core action and user scope. However, it leaves gaps around the 'name' parameter and does not describe the expected return or duplicate behavior, so it is minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'name,' but the schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention or explain the parameter at all. The parameter is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level meaning such as naming constraints or duplicate handling.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new notebook.' It also scopes the operation to 'the signed-in user,' making the action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation tools such as onenote_create_section or onenote_create_page, but the notebook resource is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like onenote_create_section or onenote_create_page. It also omits prerequisites such as sign-in state beyond the brief 'signed-in user' phrase. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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