notebook_add_url

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or whether the URL is fetched/validated. This is insufficient for a safe selection.

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 that is front-loaded with the key purpose. No extraneous words. However, it could include more relevant detail without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description leaves many questions unanswered (e.g., what happens after adding? Are there constraints on the URL?). For a simple tool but with no behavioral context, it's incomplete.

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 50% (only 'url' has a description). The tool description repeats the schema's detail for 'url' but adds nothing for 'notebook_id'. With half the parameters undocumented and no extra context, the description does not compensate.

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 action (Add), the resource (a URL), and the target (a notebook). It also specifies the types of URLs (website or YouTube). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_add_drive or notebook_add_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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not context or exclusions. Sibling names provide some implicit distinction but the description itself lacks usage direction.

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