Generate write-up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool runs in the background, returns {status: 'generating', type} rather than the finished artifact, and that the write-up appears later in the note's content list. It doesn't cover cost, rate limits, or failure/error behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the async contract front-loaded before the follow-up instruction. Every sentence contributes a distinct operational fact.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value — it does so precisely ({status: 'generating', type}) plus the retrieval path via get_notebook. Combined with the stated precondition, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so notebook_id, lang, and type are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or default detail beyond it; per the rules, a 100%-covered schema sets a baseline of 3.

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 ('Generate (or regenerate) the write-up for a meeting from its sources'), including the regeneration case. It also names the sibling to read the result with (get_notebook), so an agent can distinguish this from the read-side tools without opening a schema.

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 precondition ('Requires the meeting to have at least one processed source') and routes the agent to the follow-up tool after the async call. It does not state any when-not conditions or contrast with other generation options, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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