NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description elaborates on the confirmation workflow, clarifies that removal is from the library (not deletion of the actual NotebookLM notebook), and specifies the dangerous nature requiring explicit user permission. This provides crucial implementation guidance not captured in structured fields.

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 well-structured with clear sections (warning, workflow steps, example) and every sentence serves a purpose. While slightly longer than minimal, the content is front-loaded with the critical warning and workflow, and the example provides valuable clarification without redundancy.

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 destructive operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the dangerous nature, confirmation requirements, workflow details, and clarifies what 'remove' actually means (library removal vs. notebook deletion). The lack of output schema is compensated by the clear behavioral description.

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 100% schema description coverage (the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema), the description adds no additional parameter information. It doesn't explain what notebook IDs look like, how to obtain them, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 removes a notebook from the user's library with 'Remove Notebook' as the title and 'remove_notebook' as the name. It specifies the action (remove) and resource (notebook), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'remove_source' which removes a different resource type. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 provides explicit, step-by-step guidelines on when to use this tool: only after user confirmation following a specific workflow. It states 'Never remove without permission or based on assumptions' and gives a concrete example with dialogue flow. This clearly defines the required context and preconditions for invocation.

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