save_auth_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a fallback method and mentions deprecated parameters (csrf_token, session_id) that are auto-extracted, adding useful context. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, error handling, or what 'save' entails (e.g., persistence, security implications), leaving behavioral gaps for a tool handling sensitive cookies.

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 core purpose and critical usage warnings. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and fallback nature, the next two provide usage guidelines, and the parameter explanations are necessary for clarity. Minor redundancy in 'Deprecated' notes could be streamlined, but overall it's efficient.

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 complexity (authentication tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter roles effectively. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. It could improve by addressing security or error details, but it's sufficient for informed tool selection.

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 significant semantic value: it explains that 'cookies' is the 'Cookie header from Chrome DevTools (only needed if CLI fails)', clarifies that csrf_token and session_id are 'Deprecated - auto-extracted', and notes that request_body and request_url are 'Optional' with specific extraction purposes. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully detail all parameter formats or constraints.

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: 'Save NotebookLM cookies (FALLBACK method - try notebooklm-mcp-auth first!)'. It specifies the exact action (save cookies) and resource (NotebookLM authentication tokens), distinguishing it from sibling tools like refresh_auth by being a fallback method for authentication setup rather than a refresh operation.

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 explicit usage guidelines: 'First, run `notebooklm-mcp-auth` via Bash/terminal (automated, preferred)' and 'Only use this tool if the automated CLI fails'. It clearly states when to use this tool (as a fallback) versus the preferred alternative (the CLI tool), including specific conditions for invocation.

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