source_delete

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context: irreversible action and permanent removal. Also details how to identify sources, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, logically organized: action, identification methods, prerequisite, warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to specify the target, prerequisite action, and consequences. Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Complete for a deletion tool.

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%, but description adds semantics: source_id is unique identifier, source_name supports partial match, and notes optional notebook_url and session_id. This enhances understanding beyond the raw 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 explicitly states the action: delete a source from the current NotebookLM notebook. It clearly identifies the resource (source) and the context (notebook), and distinguishes from siblings like source_add.

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?

Provides strong prerequisites by advising use of list_content first to see available sources. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the warning and identification method give sufficient guidance for appropriate usage.

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