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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Bulk support'. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, atomic for bulk, or any side effects. The description fails to add value beyond 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?

The description is very concise (two short sentences), but it sacrifices essential information. While front-loaded with the core action, the brevity results in insufficient detail. Every sentence earns its place, but the content is minimal.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return value, error handling, bulk semantics, parameter constraints, and any usage scenarios. Agents are left with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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, the description must compensate but only mentions 'notebook_ids, source_ids for batched execution'. It does not explain the relationship between singular and plural parameters, the meaning of 'new_title', required vs optional, or any constraints. This leaves agents guessing about parameter usage.

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 'Renomeia uma fonte' clearly states the action (rename) and resource (source). It distinguishes itself from siblings like notebooklm_source_add or notebooklm_artifact_rename by specifically targeting source renaming. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from other rename tools (e.g., notebooklm_notebook_rename) and could be more specific about the scope.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use singular parameters vs. bulk arrays). It mentions 'Bulk support' but lacks context on prerequisites, limits, or when not to use this tool.

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