note_to_source

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

The description discloses the internal method (find by title, attempt native convert, fallback to extraction) and outcome (content available for RAG queries), adding context beyond the annotations. However, it does not cover failure modes or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and structured with a list of steps. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value; the step list could be slightly more concise.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It provides a use case and mentions optional parameters, but could include more context about prerequisites like the active notebook.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add significant additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 converts a note to a source document in NotebookLM, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like note_create and source_add by focusing on conversion.

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 the tool ('Use this when you want your note content to be included in NotebookLM's knowledge base'), but does not list alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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