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 thoroughly explains what the tool does (closes browser sessions, deletes authentication data, opens browser for fresh login), includes post-action steps (use 'get_health'), and provides detailed troubleshooting for failures, covering behavioral aspects like data deletion and conflict resolution.

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 well-structured with bullet points and numbered steps, making it easy to scan. However, it includes extensive troubleshooting details that, while helpful, add length. Every sentence serves a purpose, but it could be more concise by integrating some troubleshooting into separate documentation.

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 the tool's complexity (authentication reset with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral steps, post-action verification, and troubleshooting, providing all necessary context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without relying on structured fields.

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 both parameters ('show_browser' and 'browser_options') with their properties. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when to use 'browser_options' over 'show_browser'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('switch', 're-authenticate') and resources ('Google account'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'de_auth' and 'setup_auth' by focusing on switching accounts or fixing authentication issues. It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the specific scenarios for use.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool (e.g., 'when NotebookLM rate limit is reached', 'when you want to switch to a different Google account', 'when authentication is broken'), includes an alternative ('use 'get_health' to verify authentication'), and offers troubleshooting steps for persistent issues, clearly differentiating it from other tools like 'cleanup_data'.

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