notebook_renameRename a NotebookLM notebook by providing its name or ID and a new title. Use it to update notebook titles programmatically.
Rename a notebook. Accepts a notebook name or ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notebook | Yes | ||
| new_title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether rename requires ownership/permissions, whether duplicate titles are allowed, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if the name is ambiguous. For a mutation tool this is a significant 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?
Two short sentences, verb and resource front-loaded, no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting necessary behavioral context, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition omits permissions, error/ambiguity behavior, and title constraints, leaving the agent under-informed before calling.
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 clarifies that the `notebook` parameter accepts either a name or an ID, which is genuine added meaning, but says nothing about `new_title` (constraints, length, uniqueness).
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Rename a notebook"), which is immediately clear. It does not, however, differentiate from potential siblings like studio_rename or source_rename, nor explain what a "notebook" is in this system.
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 on when to use this versus notebook_create, notebook_describe, or the rename tools for other resources. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.