It would depend on the tribe and their capabilities.
However I think your scale is simply absurd.
50,000 books is unheard of in such a context. In fact a whole library might not even hold that.
You have to understand the whole context of books in pre-modern times.
(Now I'm aware of different practices, and certainly medieval Europe did not hold many books compared to "Dar Al Hikma" in Baghdad and so on.)
Knowledge would (mostly) not be passed down from books. Only highly abstract ideas and art are given such privileges. And you have to take into consideration that in order to develop any notable art and philosophy, and start translating other works (and all the other prerequisites to large libraries) you have to be a stable state with a lot of free time and a strong inclination to read and write and translate... etc.
People did not just think: I'll go down to the local ancient temple and write down a full description of the thing just for the fun of it.
These prerequisites are all missing from a nomadic tribe, and trying to haul around that many books is absurd. Simple logistics.
You carry the most important stuff only. So why carry around a crappy copy of a second rate "novel"? It's just too much trouble.
Now back to the way people used to do things. A master taught an apprentice who in turn would pass down that knowledge. Oddly enough, even today we highly value technical hands-on teaching, and certainly a school that teaches you the theoretical principles of making cars is nothing like a school that teaches those principles and also puts you in a workshop and tells you to build that darn thing.
So more books doesn't necessarily equal a more educated or knowledgable people. An average first-world citizen with access to millions of books is no more capable of making a simple radio than a citizen of Athena in 100 BC.
And we also know that certain ancient tribes (like Arabic nomadic tribes) had excellent memory. And when I say excellent, I mean the ability to perfectly recite a 100-verse poem with absolute accuracy down to smallest element.
So people did have better memories when it came to the things that matter like art or history.
Also I do remember something similar in Europe.
I think Caesar killed this group of Shamans or something that had all the history of the tribe and then all their secrets were lost to us, but that was a long time ago.
Lastly the available pool of books and the entire viewpoint on "publishing" was nothing like today.
Do you think that people of the ancient world had thousands of choices and that you had hundreds of genres and all that modern stuff?
People only bothered with important and "good" (read: useful) works.
You didn't sit down and write a crappy YA novel.
It just takes too much time. And even if you finish one copy then you have to spend even more time to write down a second copy.
So people focused on the important books.
Now most of this is general rules of thumb, because we only need the larger context here to come to the conclusion that you need to change something.
Anyway I really think you need to scale it down. Something like 1000 books seems a lot more manageable.
And this is all in regard to the given information. If you did figure out all those things and have strong and reasonable reasons why this is so then I apologize.
I hate to be the guy that just comes around to argue a point that you figured out already.
But if not, better change something.