Create Notebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the creation action, which implies mutation, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, return behavior, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate name handling). The uniqueness constraint appears only in the parameter schema, not in the description itself, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 unnecessary words. It states the action and the key attribute (top-level) immediately, and every word contributes to the meaning. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of the return value (does it return the created notebook?), which could be relevant for an agent chaining actions. It also does not clarify the meaning of 'top-level' beyond what the schema implies. These gaps leave the tool slightly under-specified for full contextual understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'name' fully described (display name, uniqueness, reserved characters). The description adds minimal value by saying 'given display name', but this only restates the parameter name. Since the schema already carries the semantic load, the description doesn't need to compensate, and a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact action ('creates a new top-level OneNote notebook') with a specific resource type and scope ('top-level'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_section, create_section_group, and create_page by indicating it targets notebooks specifically. The phrase 'given display name' ties the action to the parameter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_section or create_section_group should be used for nested elements, nor does it offer any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the resource type, not explicitly stated.

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