notebooklm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively by detailing three specific behavioral outcomes (closing browser sessions, deleting saved auth data, preserving notebook library). It also warns about the need for re-authentication post-use, though it lacks explicit mention of rate limits or error conditions, which slightly limits completeness.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, but slightly verbose in listing multiple usage scenarios and effects. Every sentence adds value (e.g., security rationale, preservation of data, post-use steps), though it could be more front-loaded by leading with the core action.

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 authentication tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is highly complete—covering purpose, usage, behavioral effects, and verification steps. It addresses security implications and dependencies on other tools, though it doesn't detail potential errors or side effects beyond the listed outcomes.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and effects, which aligns with the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('de-authenticate/logout') and resource ('authentication data'), distinguishing it from siblings like 're_auth' or 'setup_auth' by focusing on clearing credentials rather than establishing them. It avoids tautology by elaborating on the security implications beyond just restating the tool name.

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?

Explicitly lists three scenarios for when to use this tool (user logout, pre-shutdown cleanup, clearing auth without re-authentication) and names an alternative tool ('get_health') to verify success. It also specifies when NOT to use it by noting that re-authentication is required afterward, guiding the agent away from misuse.

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