library_add

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a write operation. The description adds context that it requires user permission and a confirmation step, but doesn't elaborate on side effects (e.g., what happens on duplicate URL) or other behavioral details. With annotations present, the description provides marginal additional transparency.

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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (when to use, workflow, rules, example). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While verbose, every section serves a purpose for agent guidance. Minor redundancy in the workflow steps could be tightened.

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 covers all necessary context: prerequisites (try auto-discovery first), a detailed mandatory conversation workflow, rules, an example, and even instructions on how to get a NotebookLM share link. The existence of an output schema is noted, so return values are adequately covered by the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The workflow mentions asking for URL, content, topics, etc., but that echoes the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add notebook with manually specified metadata'. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool 'auto_discover_notebook', distinguishing when each should be used. The verb 'add' and resource 'notebook' are specific.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (auto-discovery failed, user prefers manual control) and when not to use (prefer auto_discover_notebook first). It includes a mandatory conversational workflow with steps and rules, such as not adding without user permission and confirming before tool call.

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