notebook_update_definition

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is long-running and it reads definition files from a specified directory rather than accepting inline content. There is no contradiction with the 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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action and the key caveat ('long-running') are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the main intent and the long-running nature, but given there is no output schema, it leaves open questions about how the operation completes, how to check status, or what the return value represents. This is a moderate gap for a more complex update operation.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds mild context by indicating the definitionDirectoryPath is the source of the definition content, but it does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Update the content/definition of a notebook') and identifies the resource and input source (definition files from a directory). It is distinguishable from notebook_get_definition by its update intent, though it does not explicitly contrast with notebook_update.

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 implies this tool is used when updating a notebook from definition files on disk, and the 'long-running' note hints at expectations. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over notebook_update or mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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