Gerar Resumo em Áudio

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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive; the description adds the crucial async/polling behavior, expected duration, per-client timeout difference, and where files land. That is genuine value beyond the annotations, though the destination string '/app/%LOCALAPPDATA%\mcp-google/saidas/notebooklm neste PC' mixes incompatible path formats and is ambiguous about the real output path.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and duration, then the client-specific polling caveat, then the output location. Each sentence carries operational value, though the final path sentence is garbled and costs clarity rather than adding it.

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 7-parameter, long-running generation tool with no output schema, the description covers timing, async polling and file destination, which are the main unknowns. It omits cost/credit implications referenced indirectly by 'uso_maximo'/'notebook_uso' and whether an existing artifact is overwritten.

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% with two enums already documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g. how 'uso_maximo' interacts with notebook_uso, or that 'fontes' defaults to all), so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and artifact: generates an Audio Summary (AI-hosted podcast) from the sources and saves the .m4a. This cleanly separates it from siblings like notebook_gerar_video, notebook_gerar_slides or notebook_gerar_relatorio, which produce different media from the same sources.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: the call takes ~3-6 min, on Claude Desktop it usually returns 'still generating' and you must poll notebook_estudio_status, while on Claude Code it blocks. It never explicitly excludes alternatives (e.g. when to prefer video or slides instead), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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