delete_notebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight and excels: it discloses that the action is a soft-delete, moves to history, is user-restorable, does not destroy query data, and makes chat bindings stale. This prevents misuse and sets correct expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the safety/recovery behavior, and the edge case with chat binding. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what happens, what is preserved, and how to recover. It also distinguishes itself from siblings and addresses a specific consequence (stale binding), making it operationally complete.

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?

The input schema already fully describes buffer_id (100% coverage) with context about where to find it. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Archive (soft-delete) a notebook tab' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from permanent deletion and names create_notebook for the stale binding case, effectively separating it from sibling tools.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (the same as closing a notebook tab) and provides an explicit alternative: 'start a new one with create_notebook' when the binding goes stale. The soft-delete and restore behavior also clarifies when not to use it (for permanent destruction).

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