notebook_add_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutating operation (adding a source), whether authentication or specific permissions are required, or what the tool returns after adding the text source. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could include additional context without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 because it is efficient, but it misses key behavioral and usage details.

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's simplicity, the description should at least mention that the agent must provide either `content` or `file_path`, and that this operation modifies a notebook. It also lacks any reference to output or return value. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke this tool, especially without annotations or an output schema.

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 schema documents all four parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'text document source,' which loosely aligns with the `content` and `file_path` parameters but does not explain the relationship or when to use one over the other (e.g., inline content vs reading from a file).

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 'Add a text document source to a notebook' clearly identifies the action (add) and the resource (text document source to a notebook). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notebook_add_drive and notebook_add_url by specifying the source type as text, though it could further clarify what 'text' encompasses (e.g., raw text, Markdown).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notebook_add_drive or notebook_add_url. The description gives no context about preferred use cases, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing notebook), or when not to use it.

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