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 effectively describes the tool's behavior as setting a default notebook that affects subsequent operations (specifically 'ask_question'), provides guidance on safe auto-switching practices, and includes an example of the expected interaction flow. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects on other operations 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 well-structured with clear sections ('When To Use', 'Auto-Switching', 'Example'), each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no redundant information, and the example efficiently illustrates usage without unnecessary detail.

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 moderate complexity (state-changing operation with no annotations or output schema), the description provides substantial context about when and how to use it, including interaction patterns. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens if an invalid notebook ID is provided or how to verify the current active notebook, but it covers the essential usage scenarios well.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (it's 'the notebook ID to activate'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('notebook'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining its role as setting the active default for when 'ask_question has no notebook_id'. This provides clear differentiation from tools like 'get_notebook' or 'list_notebooks'.

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 includes explicit 'When To Use' and 'Auto-Switching' sections that provide clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives specific scenarios (user switches context, explicit requests, task changes) and rules for auto-switching versus asking for clarification, making it highly actionable for an AI agent.

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