Criar notebook

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly but non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavior: omitting the title causes Google to auto-name the notebook after the first source, which affects how an agent should treat the empty-title case. It omits auth requirements and whether the created notebook is returned.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the optional-parameter caveat second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter creation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the action and the title default. With no output schema, a hint about what is returned (e.g. the new notebook reference) would make it fully complete.

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 100% for the single 'titulo' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting the parameter (Google auto-names it later), turning an optional field into a meaningful decision.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Cria um notebook novo no NotebookLM' tells the agent exactly what is produced. The word 'novo' separates it from mutation siblings like notebook_renomear or notebook_configurar_chat, though it does not name an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that a notebook should be created before adding sources (notebook_adicionar_fonte) or generating studio artifacts. No prerequisites such as an active login are mentioned, and no when-not-to-use condition is given.

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