NotebookLM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the operation is irreversible (destructive), requires user confirmation (confirm=True), and permanently deletes the resource. This goes beyond what the input schema alone would indicate, providing essential safety and usage context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most critical information first ('Delete source permanently. IRREVERSIBLE.'). The Args section is well-structured but slightly redundant with the main description. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly more integrated.

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 tool with no annotations, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, irreversible nature, confirmation requirement, and parameter meanings. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it could briefly mention potential side effects or dependencies, though not strictly necessary given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It clarifies that source_id is a 'Source UUID to delete' and that confirm 'Must be True after user approval', adding crucial semantic meaning about the purpose and constraints of each parameter that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 ('Delete source permanently') and resource ('source'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like source_describe or source_list_drive. It uses strong, unambiguous language that leaves no doubt about the tool's function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to delete a source permanently) and includes a prerequisite (requires confirm=True after user approval). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as notebook_delete or studio_delete, which might handle different resource types.

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