Roteiro de vídeo curto pelo NotebookLM

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

Annotations only say it is a non-destructive, open-world write, so the description carries the real disclosure burden and does: it writes files to a specific folder with 01-, 02- naming, runs through the NotebookLM chat (latency risk), can return 'ainda escrevendo' requiring a continuar=true retry with the same inputs, and warns the source text is data not instructions. It does not describe what the successful return payload contains beyond 'cenario and falas', so it falls just short of full transparency.

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?

Purpose and pipeline are front-loaded, and the operational warnings (retry, source-exaggeration check, prompt-injection caution) each carry distinct value. Some density is avoidable, e.g. the raw filesystem path with %LOCALAPPDATA% and parenthetical asides, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and thin annotations, the description supplies the workflow, the async-retry contract, filesystem side effects, and injection hardening. The only real gap is the shape of the returned script/fields an agent must feed into flow_video_longo, which is only implied.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by tying falas/cenario to the downstream flow_video_longo call, explaining that continuar=true reuses the same inputs after 'ainda escrevendo', and noting lines may need correcting before video generation. It still does not explain how fontes, voz, or titulo interact with the saved file, leaving some parameter behavior 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 deliverable: it writes the script for a ~30s curiosity short using NotebookLM and the notebook's sources, in the flow_video_longo presenter format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream flow_video_longo and the upstream notebook_pesquisar_fontes, and by saying it does not generate video (unlike notebook_gerar_video or flow_gerar_video).

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 an explicit ordered pipeline (notebook_criar → notebook_pesquisar_fontes → notebook_roteiro → flow_video_longo) plus the pre-video verification step of checking lines against the source excerpt. It also states what not to expect: no video generation, no Flow credit spend, and how to resume via continuar=true rather than re-asking.

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