Resumo + palavras-chave de uma fonte (gerado por IA).
Bulk support: accepts notebook_ids, source_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ||
| source_ids | No | ||
| notebook_id | Yes | ||
| notebook_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the output is AI-generated, implying potential variability, and that bulk execution is supported. This enriches the behavioral context without contradicting annotations.
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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (summary + keywords). The second adds the bulk capability. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides value.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main function and batch support. However, it lacks details on output structure, prerequisites (e.g., source must exist), language, and the exact meaning of 'guide' in the name. These gaps reduce completeness.
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 0% description coverage, so the description adds critical meaning: that source_id and notebook_id are for single use, while source_ids and notebook_ids enable batch processing. This explains the role of two parameters partially, but does not clarify the relationship between the singular and plural versions or other constraints.
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 generates an AI-powered summary and keywords for a source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebooklm_source_get or notebooklm_source_fulltext which retrieve raw content. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 via notebook_ids and source_ids, giving a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., for quick insights vs. full text), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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.