notebook_attach_environment

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which mark this as a mutating operation without gross destructiveness. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those hints: it states precisely what is mutated ('notebook definition metadata'), what is not touched ('no local files involved'), and the downstream effect on runtime compute/libraries. It stops short of full disclosure (e.g., reversibility, permissions, impact on running sessions), but the metadata-scope clarification is valuable.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The primary action and effect are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the clarifying mutation-scope caveat follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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 low-complexity operation with four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool does, what effect it has, and what it does not touch. The main gaps are usage guidance and prerequisites, which are not critical for a straightforward metadata attach operation but would round out the definition.

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%, with each of the four parameters documented (notebookId, workspaceId, environmentId, and environmentWorkspaceId with its defaulting behavior). The description reinforces the core semantics by linking 'environment' to 'compute/libraries', but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') with a specific resource ('a Fabric Environment to a notebook') and states the operational effect ('so it uses that environment's compute/libraries'). The second sentence clarifies the scope of the operation ('Mutates the notebook definition metadata'), which differentiates it from file-level operations and from the sibling notebook_detach_environment by making the attachment direction explicit.

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 purpose statement implies when to use it (when a notebook should run on a given environment's compute/libraries), but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, such as the environment being published, or on alternatives, such as pointing to notebook_detach_environment for the reverse operation. The sibling list exists, but the description itself never says 'use this when...' or 'for X, use Y instead.'

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