notebook_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it only states the operation and two backends. It omits permissions/auth requirements, side effects, whether toggling public link sharing is reversible or destructive, and what notify_via_email does.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is too terse for a seven-parameter mutation and packs two distinct modes into parentheses rather than structuring them.

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 seven optional params, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a mutation shape, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The output schema helps only with return values, not with invocation semantics.

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 description coverage is 0% across seven parameters, and the description only clarifies 'email' and 'public'. It leaves role, engine, notebook_id, workspace_dir, and notify_via_email unexplained, with no format or default semantics added.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Share') and resource ('Gemini Notebook'), and distinguishes the two sharing modes (email IAM vs public link RPC). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the sibling tools cover sharing, so selection remains clear.

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?

Gives the two modes but no guidance on when to select email vs public, prerequisites/permissions, or what happens when optional notebook_id/workspace_dir are omitted. The mode split is useful context, but it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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