notebooklm_remove_sources

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

There are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, and the description only says 'Remove sources' without disclosing whether removal is permanent, whether it affects generated audio or other notebook content, or what state the sources enter after removal. This leaves the agent without needed behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, output schema, or elaboration on side effects, this description is thin. It tells what is removed but does not say what happens afterward, whether the operation is reversible, or what an agent should expect as a result. More context would be needed for confident invocation.

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 fully covers the sole parameter sourceIds with the description 'Source IDs to remove.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much; it offers no extra semantic detail but also leaves no gap.

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 states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove sources from a notebook.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebooklm_add_sources and notebooklm_get_source.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when sources need to be removed from a notebook. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, nor any caveats about prerequisites or relationships to other operations such as adding or fetching sources.

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