Reprocessa uma fonte de URL/Drive (re-indexa o conteúdo atual).
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?
Description explains the action (re-indexing) and does not contradict annotations. It adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it updates content rather than being destructive.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficient mention of bulk support. No wasted words.
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?
Covers the main purpose and bulk capability. Could mention prerequisites (source must exist) for completeness, but the core behavior is well described.
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 coverage, the description partially compensates by noting bulk support via notebook_ids and source_ids, but doesn't fully clarify the relationship between required and optional 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 tool reprocesses a URL/Drive source (re-indexes current content), using specific verbs ('reprocessa', 're-indexa') and distinguishing it from sibling tools like add or delete.
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?
Usage is implied (refresh existing sources) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned, though the bulk support hint provides some context.
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.