NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that resetting only affects chat history (not the session ID) and emphasizes user confirmation. It doesn't contradict annotations (destructive=true aligns with 'reset'), though it could mention rate limits or auth needs for a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by usage guidance and a critical behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter), annotations cover key behavioral traits, and the description adds practical context like user confirmation. However, without an output schema, it could briefly mention what happens post-reset (e.g., confirmation message) for full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'session_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 specific action ('Reset a session's chat history') and resource ('session'), with explicit distinction from siblings by noting it 'keep[s] same session ID' (unlike close_session which likely ends the session). It avoids tautology by explaining what resetting entails beyond just the name/title.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use ('for a clean slate when the task changes') and includes a crucial behavioral directive ('ask the user before resetting'), which distinguishes it from alternatives like close_session or other session management tools. This covers both context and exclusions effectively.

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