createNewNotebook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool creates a notebook and returns information including an ID, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with three concise sentences: purpose, usage, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, the usage sentence could be slightly more direct, but overall it avoids waste and is well-structured.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and return value but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) that would be needed for full completeness. For a simple creation tool, it meets basic needs but has clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no constraints on name format or length). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 tool creates a new electronic lab notebook, specifying both the verb ('creates') and resource ('electronic lab notebook'). It distinguishes from siblings like createNotebookEntry (which adds entries to existing notebooks) and create_document_from_form (which creates documents from forms). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Organize related experiments/entries under a single notebook,' suggesting this tool is for grouping related content. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., when to use create_grid_container instead), or exclusions. This is typical for basic creation tools but misses explicit sibling differentiation.

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