notebook_add_urls

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 states the tool adds URLs as sources, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it overwrites existing sources, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently lists parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or side effects, which are important for a write operation with multiple inputs.

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 meaning by explaining that 'notebook_id' is a 'Notebook UUID' and 'urls' is a 'List of URLs to add (can mix website and YouTube URLs),' which clarifies the parameter types and constraints beyond the schema's basic string/array definitions. However, it doesn't specify URL format validation or limits on array size.

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 specific action ('Add multiple URLs'), resource ('as sources'), and scope ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'notebook_add_url' (singular) and 'notebook_add_text' by specifying it handles multiple URLs of mixed types (websites or YouTube).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'multiple URLs in a single request' and 'can mix website and YouTube URLs,' which suggests it's for batch operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'notebook_add_url' or 'notebook_add_drive,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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