notebook_share_public

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., breaking existing links), prerequisites (e.g., notebook must exist), permissions required, or rate limits. Only the binary action is stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple binary operation.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks context about the behavior of public links, such as whether enabling disables other share modes or affects existing access. Minimal but sufficient for a straightforward toggle operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the two parameters (is_public, notebook_id). It restates the action without enriching parameter context.

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 'Enable or disable public link access' clearly states the verb (enable/disable) and the resource (public link access), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notebook_share_invite (invite specific users) and notebook_share_batch (batch share).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as notebook_share_invite or notebook_share_batch. The description does not mention when to enable versus disable, or any context for usage.

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