notebook_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical traits: the action is 'IRREVERSIBLE' (destructive), requires user confirmation via the 'confirm' parameter, and permanently deletes the notebook. This covers safety, prerequisites, and consequences beyond what the schema provides.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete notebook permanently. IRREVERSIBLE. Requires confirm=True.') in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and 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's complexity (destructive deletion with a confirmation safeguard), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral risks, and parameter semantics, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds essential meaning: 'notebook_id' is a 'Notebook UUID' (clarifying format) and 'confirm' 'Must be True after user approval' (explaining its purpose and validation rule). This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, fully documenting both parameters.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'notebook permanently', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notebook_rename, notebook_describe, and notebook_list by focusing on deletion rather than modification, description, or listing.

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 explicitly states 'Requires confirm=True' and 'Must be True after user approval', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (only after user confirmation) and prerequisites. It implies alternatives like notebook_rename or notebook_describe for non-destructive operations, though it doesn't name them directly.

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