notebooklm-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that notes support markdown formatting, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether creation requires authentication, if notes are editable/deletable, or any rate limits—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by explanatory sentences that add value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality or formatting.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It covers basic purpose and formatting but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or return values. However, the 100% schema coverage and clear purpose make it minimally adequate, scoring a 3.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (title, content, notebook_url, session_id). The description adds that notes support markdown formatting, which clarifies the 'content' parameter, but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a note') and resource ('in the NotebookLM Studio panel'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'save_chat_to_note' or 'convert_note_to_source'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'add_source'), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies usage for saving research findings, summaries, or custom content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_chat_to_note' or 'add_source'. It provides general context but lacks specific guidance on tool selection.

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