NotebookLM MCP Server (Security Hardened)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that this sets a default for 'ask_question', provides auto-switching guidelines with safety considerations (e.g., 'announce it', 'ask if ambiguous'), and includes an example of user-agent interaction. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive aspects, but the description enriches this with practical usage patterns without contradicting them.

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 ('When To Use', 'Auto-Switching', 'Example'), front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by providing actionable guidance or examples, with no redundant or verbose content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral nuances like auto-switching, and ties into sibling tools ('ask_question'). It provides all necessary context for an agent to use the tool effectively without needing output schema details.

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 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'The notebook ID to activate'. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format or sourcing, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Set a notebook as the active default') and the resource ('notebook'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_notebook', 'update_notebook', or 'list_notebooks'. It explicitly explains the functional purpose: to determine which notebook is used when 'ask_question' has no notebook_id.

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 guidance in a dedicated 'When To Use' section with three concrete scenarios (user switches context, asks explicitly, or task change requires another notebook). It also includes 'Auto-Switching' rules with clear conditions for when to auto-switch versus ask for clarification, and references the sibling tool 'ask_question' as context.

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