notebook_add_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a URL as a source, implying a write operation, but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid URLs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 URL (website or YouTube) as source.') followed by parameter details. There is no wasted text, and the structure is clear, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., integrating the 'Args' section more seamlessly).

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and parameter constraints. For a write operation with no annotation support, this leaves room for improvement in providing a fuller context.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes the two parameters ('notebook_id' and 'url'), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not provide details on parameter formats (e.g., UUID structure, URL validation) or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, this is a baseline adequate but incomplete effort.

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 URL (website or YouTube) as source.' It specifies the verb ('Add'), resource ('URL'), and type of resource ('website or YouTube'), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_text', which also add sources but of different types, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), exclusions (e.g., invalid URL types), or comparisons to siblings like 'notebook_add_drive' or 'notebook_add_text'. The only implied context is adding a URL to a notebook, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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