notebook_create_collectionCreate an empty collection (a named folder for notebooks) on one account and return its collection id. Add notebooks to it with notebook_update_collection. If the emoji could not be set, the collection is still created and a warning says so. POST /collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Collection name. | |
| No | The Gemini Notebook account email. Optional when the API token has one account. | ||
| emoji | No | Optional emoji, e.g. 🚀. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write/read/non-idempotent/destructive profile, so the description's added value is the partial-success behavior: if the emoji fails, the collection is still created and a warning is returned. It also discloses the return value (collection id). This is genuinely useful beyond structured data, though it doesn't discuss permissions or rate limits.
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?
Front-loads the core purpose and keeps the follow-up and edge-case sentences short. Every sentence earns its place, though 'POST /collections' is minor implementation detail that adds little for the agent.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description states what is returned (collection id) and covers the emoji partial-failure case. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth/permission expectations are unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (name, email, emoji) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds only marginal context (account scoping, emoji-failure handling) and does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (collection), and even defines the resource as 'a named folder for notebooks,' which removes ambiguity. It also names the tool that adds notebooks (notebook_update_collection), distinguishing it from sibling update/list/delete variants.
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?
Gives clear operational context: create empty first, then populate via notebook_update_collection, and notes the account scope ('on one account'). It lacks an explicit when/when-not framing against alternatives, but the routing to the follow-up tool is clear.
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.