create_notebook

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 that this is a creation/mutation operation (implied by 'Create'), specifies the uniqueness constraint ('Must be unique in your personal space'), and provides important implementation details about content validation ('The content must be valid JSON') and platform-specific variables ('use the variable "connection_url" that already exists'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, how to use) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the JSON structure explanation is detailed but necessary given the 0% schema coverage). The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and all content earns its place.

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 creation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and implementation examples. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The MCP context parameter documentation in the schema partially compensates.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing rich semantic information. It explains the 'notebook_name' parameter's extension handling and uniqueness requirement, and provides detailed JSON structure, validation rules, and examples for the 'content' parameter. The 'ctx' parameter is implicitly covered through the MCP context documentation in 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 specific action ('Create a new Jupyter notebook'), the target resource ('in your personal space'), and technical constraints ('Only supports python and markdown'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_scheduled_job' and 'create_virtual_workspace' by focusing specifically on notebook creation with language limitations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including prerequisites ('Before creating the notebook, call check_if_file_exists tool to verify if the notebook already exists') and best practices for content structure. It also distinguishes usage from other tools by specifying the notebook platform context and database connection approach.

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