notebooklm-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing this is a 'dangerous' operation requiring explicit user confirmation. It clarifies behavioral aspects like the confirmation workflow, what gets removed (from library, not the actual notebook), and permission requirements. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects or error conditions.

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 but not optimally structured. The warning is front-loaded appropriately, but the workflow section is detailed with numbered steps. The example adds value but makes the description longer. Most sentences earn their place, but some redundancy exists between the workflow description and example.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to cover the dangerous nature, confirmation requirements, and what the operation actually does. It provides sufficient context for safe usage, though it doesn't describe return values or error responses.

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 100% description coverage with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced 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 removes a notebook from the user's library, with the verb 'remove' and resource 'notebook' specified. It distinguishes from deletion by clarifying it doesn't delete the actual NotebookLM notebook. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_source' or 'cleanup_data'.

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 usage guidelines with a step-by-step confirmation workflow, specifying when to use (only after explicit user confirmation) and when not to use (never without permission or based on assumptions). It includes a concrete example showing the proper sequence.

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