Re-tenta a geração de um artifact que falhou.
Bulk support: accepts notebook_ids, artifact_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| artifact_id | Yes | ||
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| artifact_ids | No | ||
| notebook_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations do not provide behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so description carries burden. It only says 'retry' but does not disclose side effects, whether it replaces existing artifacts, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
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?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and add bulk feature. No wasted words, but could benefit from separating single vs bulk usage for clarity.
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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description leaves significant gaps: no explanation of single vs bulk workflow, return value, error handling, or prerequisites for retrying a failed artifact.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only mentions 'notebook_ids, artifact_ids for batched execution' but does not explain each parameter's role, relationship between single and bulk parameters (e.g., mutual exclusivity), or data formats. Inadequate value added.
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 it retries failed artifact generation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, list, delete, etc. The verb 'retry' and resource 'artifact' are specific, and the bulk support note adds differentiation.
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 mentions bulk support, giving a hint about batch vs single execution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., artifact must have failed), or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (notebook vs source vs note vs artifact vs sharing). Minor overlap exists between notebooklm_ask and notebooklm_history (both Q&A-related) and between artifact generate/poll/retry, but descriptions help differentiate. Meta-tools like marketplace and authenticate are separate in function.
Core tools follow a consistent notebooklm_{resource}_{action} pattern. However, meta-tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) lack the notebooklm_ prefix, breaking overall naming consistency. Within the core domain, naming is predictable.
43 tools is high but covers a broad domain: notebooks, sources, notes, artifacts (multiple types), sharing, Q&A, plus meta-tools. Some tools could be merged (e.g., share_add/remove/update/view_level), and meta-tools inflate count. Feels slightly heavy but not excessive for the feature set.
Covers full lifecycle for notebooks, sources, notes, artifacts (CRUD plus generate, download, poll, retry, suggestions). Sharing and Q&A have comprehensive operations. Minor gap: no tool to update notebook metadata beyond rename, but overall very complete.