source_renameRename any source in a NotebookLM notebook by providing the notebook ID, source ID, and a new title.
Rename a source in a notebook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| new_title | Yes | New display title for the source | |
| source_id | Yes | Source UUID to rename | |
| notebook_id | Yes | Notebook UUID containing the source |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.2Input schema / properties / new_title / descriptionAdded value: +"New display title for the source"Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Notebook UUID containing the source"Input schema / properties / source_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Source UUID to rename"v0.9.1v0.8.9v0.7.7Input schema / properties / new_title / descriptionRemoved value: -"New display title for the source"Input schema / properties / notebook_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Notebook UUID containing the source"Input schema / properties / source_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Source UUID to rename"v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the rename action and does not disclose whether the operation is limited to display title, whether it is reversible, or what side effects may occur.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the key action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though slightly minimal in supporting context.
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 schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so basic invocation is clear. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves behavioral context and decision-making to the agent.
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 parameter nuance beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema fully documents all three required parameters.
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 a specific verb ('Rename'), a clear resource ('a source'), and the containing context ('in a notebook'). This is distinct from sibling tools like source_delete, source_describe, and notebook_rename, so an agent can identify the correct operation.
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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it name any excluded cases or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the verb itself, which is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.