notebook_add_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add'), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The phrase 'as source' hints at context but is vague.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. No wasted sentences, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly verbose. It efficiently conveys essential information in a compact form.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces need for return value explanation, but gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section documents all three parameters with basic semantics (e.g., 'Notebook UUID', 'Text content to add', 'Optional title'). This compensates partially, though it lacks format details or examples. With 0% coverage, baseline would be lower, but the description adds meaningful value.

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 action ('Add pasted text as source') and resource (notebook), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_url' beyond implying text content vs. other source types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_url'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools.

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