audio_overview_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the confirm requirement for user approval, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on other behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or what the audio overview entails (e.g., duration, format specifics). This is adequate but has gaps.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, but the Args formatting could be more integrated into the flow rather than a separate block, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., what the audio output is like).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all parameters: notebook_id (Notebook UUID), source_ids (Source IDs with default), format (deep_dive|brief|critique|debate), length (short|default|long), language (BCP-47 code), focus_prompt (Optional focus text), and confirm (Must be True after user approval). This provides clear context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain enum values or defaults, keeping it from a 5.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Generate audio overview' with specific parameters like format, length, and language, making it clear this creates an audio summary. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'video_overview_create' or other content creation tools in the list, which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides clear context with 'Requires confirm=True after user approval', indicating when to use this tool (after approval). It doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs. other overview tools), so it's not a full 5, but the approval requirement is explicit guidance.

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