notebook_delete

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

The description fully discloses the permanent, irreversible nature of the deletion and the mandatory confirm=True safety mechanism. With no annotations provided, this carries the entire burden and does so excellently.

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 extremely concise: a single impactful sentence followed by clean parameter definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers all necessary context: destructive action, confirm requirement, parameter types. The presence of output schema means return values need not be explained.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining notebook_id as a UUID and confirm as requiring user approval, adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Delete notebook permanently' with strong emphasis on irreversibility. It specifies the exact action and resource, and distinctly separates from sibling tools like notebook_create or notebook_rename.

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 requires confirm=True and user approval before deletion, providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but for a destructive operation the guidance is sufficient.

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