studio_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that artifacts are created, requires user approval via confirm, and shows default source behavior. However, it does not detail side effects, idempotency, or whether the operation is synchronous.

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 well-structured with a short intro, artifact type list, type-specific options, common options, and an example. It is front-loaded but slightly lengthy; however, every section adds value given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (22 parameters), the description covers input parameters thoroughly and includes an example. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. Missing behavioral context like error handling or async behavior prevents a higher score.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully explains all parameters, including type-specific options (e.g., audio_format, video_format) and common options like language and focus_prompt. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Create any NotebookLM studio artifact' and lists all supported artifact types (audio, video, infographic, etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_delete and studio_revise.

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 it is the unified creation tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like studio_revise. It mentions the confirm parameter requiring user approval but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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