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 of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates critical behavioral traits: the irreversible nature of the deletion ('WARNING: This action is irreversible'), the permanent removal consequence, and the partial match capability for source_name. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, identification options, usage guidance, and warning. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words, and critical information (the warning) is appropriately emphasized.

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 and no output schema, the description does well by covering the irreversible nature, identification methods, and usage guidance. However, it doesn't specify what happens on success/failure or return values, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the identification options (source_id vs source_name with partial match) and mentioning that notebook_url defaults to the active notebook, but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 target resource ('a source from the current NotebookLM notebook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remove_notebook' or 'cleanup_data'. It provides concrete identification methods (source_id or source_name) that clarify the exact operation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use list_content first to see available sources and their IDs/names') and provides clear alternatives for source identification (either source_id or source_name). It also warns about prerequisites by mentioning the need to identify sources first.

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