Adicionar fonte

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true; the description adds real behavioral context: the call blocks while NotebookLM processes, each file is capped at 200 MB, and the response reports type and size of every new source. It omits failure/timeout behavior and duplicate handling, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the one-type-per-call rule, with the format list compressed into a single parenthetical. Nothing is wasted despite covering five input modes.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return summary (type and size per new source), and it covers the size and format limits an agent needs before calling. Only edge cases like oversized batches, unsupported formats, or processing failures are unaddressed.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond it: it clarifies that url accepts several links, that arquivos needs full PC paths in specific formats with a 200 MB limit, and that drive takes an exact name or file link. The notebook parameter's id/URL/partial-title resolution is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adiciona fontes a um notebook') and then enumerates exactly which source kinds are accepted (url/texto/arquivos/drive). An agent can tell this is the ingestion tool, distinct from siblings like notebook_fontes or notebook_fonte_remover, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use UM tipo por chamada' is an explicit, non-obvious usage constraint that prevents an agent from combining url+texto+arquivos in one call. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives or what to do if a source already exists – so no exclusions or routing are provided.

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