notebook_add_text

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, content size limits, or whether adding text overwrites existing sources. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 wasted words. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or authentication context. Given the sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it does not clarify format, length limits, or encoding for the 'content' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is moderate but the description adds no new value.

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 specifies the action ('Add') and the resource ('pasted text as a source to a notebook'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like notebook_add_url, notebook_add_drive, and notebook_add_local_file by explicitly mentioning 'pasted text'.

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 (e.g., notebook_add_url or notebook_add_local_file). The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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