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 and excels at this. It explicitly warns 'IRREVERSIBLE' (critical destructive behavior), specifies the confirmation requirement 'Requires confirm=True' (safety mechanism), and mentions the artifact source 'from studio_status' (prerequisite context). This provides comprehensive behavioral information beyond what the bare schema offers.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by a well-organized parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place - the warning, confirmation requirement, and parameter explanations are all essential information with zero wasted words.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides excellent coverage of the critical aspects: purpose, behavioral warnings, and parameter semantics. The main gap is that it doesn't mention what the tool returns (though the output schema handles this), and it could more explicitly differentiate from similar deletion tools in the sibling list.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: notebook_id as 'Notebook UUID', artifact_id as 'Artifact UUID (from studio_status)', and confirm as 'Must be True after user approval'. This adds crucial semantic meaning that the schema's type definitions alone don't provide, including the relationship between parameters and prerequisite information.

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') and resource ('studio artifact'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_delete or source_delete by specifying the artifact type. It provides a complete verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 (deleting studio artifacts) and includes the prerequisite 'Requires confirm=True' which indicates a safety mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the context suggests it's for studio artifacts specifically.

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