notebook_clear_all_outputs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that outputs and execution counts are cleared but does not disclose whether this mutates the file on disk, is undoable, requires a running kernel, or affects unsaved changes. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words (8 words). It front-loads the core action. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., split into what it does and what it clears), but remains effective.

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?

Given the simple input (one param) and no output schema, the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks completeness in explaining the consequences (e.g., whether this triggers a save, affects kernel state, or interacts with other notebook tools). Adequate but not thorough.

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% (the lone 'path' parameter is described in the schema as 'Path to the notebook'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Clears' and identifies the exact resources: 'outputs and execution counts for all code cells'. It distinguishes from sibling 'notebook_clear_cell_outputs' by specifying 'all' cells, making the scope 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'notebook_clear_cell_outputs'. With 27 sibling tools, the description does not help the agent decide between batch vs. individual clearing or mention prerequisites or side effects.

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