notebooklm_add_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add sources to a notebook' and does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, accepted source formats, duplicate handling, or whether the operation appends vs replaces.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no item schema for sources, ths description is too sparse. An agent does not know what a valid source entry looks like (URL, file, structured object), what constraints exist, or what the result will be.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; sources and notebookId are described in only the most generic terms, but the schema at least lables them accurately.

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 a specific action (Add) and resource (sources to a notebook). The verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_sources and get_source, so an agent can identify what this tool does even without inspecting the 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description merely restates the operation; it does not say when to prefer this tool over notebooklm_add_sources siblings, mention prerequisites, or note when not to use it.

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