notebook_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'Deletes' a file, implying destructive action, but does not confirm whether deletion is irreversible, if there is a trash/recovery option, or if permission checks apply. For a destructive tool with no annotations, 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. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, for a destructive tool, slightly more detail (e.g., about irreversibility) could be expected, but for a simple delete action, this is concise and adequate.

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 that this tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It clarifies the action (delete) and the resource (notebook file), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, missing behavioral details (reversibility, confirmation needs) could lead to errors in autonomous use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema documents the single parameter (path) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Deletes an existing notebook file' uses a specific verb (Deletes) and clearly identifies the resource (notebook file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that create, rename, read, or edit notebooks, but could be slightly more specific by mentioning it operates at the file level (not individual cells).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_delete_cell (for deleting cells within a notebook). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the notebook should exist), side effects (file permanently removed), or when not to use it.

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