Dossier Import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that imports are recorded one-by-one and may yield 'uncertain results', and names the external target (NotebookLM), but says nothing about authentication needs, idempotency, side effects on the destination notebook, or what triggers the task-ID mismatch that confirm_task_id resolves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the action and its two recording obligations. There is no filler, though it is terse enough that the surrounding context that would aid selection is absent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but this is a mutation tool writing to an external system with no annotations. Given the complexity signaled by the reconciliation and task-confirmation parameters, the description omits too much about preconditions and failure modes to be considered complete.

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 the schema already fully documents all five parameters including defaults and the reconciliation and confirmation semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb plus resource plus destination: it imports the selected discovery sources into NotebookLM and records the mapping. An agent can distinguish it from dossier_export and dossier_source_get by the 'import into NotebookLM' action, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as dossier_source_get for inspecting sources first or dossier_export for the inverse direction. The existence of a reconcile_only mode is only visible in the schema, not framed as usage guidance in the text.

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