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 implies a write operation ('Add'), but doesn't clarify if this creates a new source entry, appends to existing content, or overwrites anything. It also lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the output schema might contain, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Add pasted text as source') followed by parameter details. The 'Args' section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values, making it adequate but not fully informative.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes all three parameters ('notebook_id', 'text', 'title'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., UUID structure for 'notebook_id') or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 pasted text as source') and identifies the target resource ('notebook'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_url', which also add content to notebooks but from different sources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'notebook_add_drive' for adding files or 'notebook_add_url' for adding web content, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing notebook or appropriate permissions.

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