notebook_split_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain what happens to the original cell (replaced? modified?), whether the split preserves cell metadata, or if there are any side effects on cell indices. This is a mutation operation, and the lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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. However, it could include additional context without becoming overly verbose (e.g., specifying that the cell content is split at the line boundary).

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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the result (e.g., returns the updated notebook), reversibility, or constraints (e.g., line_number must be within cell line count). The sibling tool set includes many cell operations, so more context would help the agent choose correctly.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description reiterates the role of line_number but adds no new meaning about path or cell_index. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not degrade or improve upon the schema.

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 ('splits a cell') and the resource ('cell') with the key parameter ('at a specified line number'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like notebook_merge_cells (combines cells) and notebook_add_cell (adds new cells) by focusing on splitting an existing cell at a line boundary.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_merge_cells or notebook_delete_cell. There are no prerequisites or conditions (e.g., the cell must contain multiple lines) mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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