notebooklm_delete_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behaviors, but it simply says 'Delete' without stating whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to sources or audio, or whether any confirmation or special permissions are needed. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: 'Delete notebook(s)' communicates the essential action with no waste. It does not restate the tool name verbatim but is close to it; however, the plural and simplicity make it an efficient, appropriately sized description for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for identifying the action, but it lacks important contextual information expected for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention consequences, reversibility, or scope of deletion, leaving an agent uncertain about the impact and whether any additional safeguards or confirmation steps are needed.

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?

The input schema already documents the notebookIds parameter with a description, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. This is acceptable when the schema is complete.

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?

'Delete notebook(s)' states a clear verb (delete) and direct object (notebook(s)), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, create, or list. The plural 's' hints at batch deletion, matching the array parameter. It could be more explicit about whether the deletion is permanent, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. An agent is left to infer that this is the tool for removing notebooks, but there is no mention of scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate or any state requirements.

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