share_remove_user

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: with the default confirm=False it does NOT mutate and returns a preview, and the mutation requires re-submitting the canonical notebook_id and verbatim email. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by the confirm workflow. Every sentence earns its place, with only the 'canonical notebook_id' phrasing being slightly implementation-specific.

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 needn't be described. Purpose, the two-step confirm flow, and per-parameter meaning are all covered; minor gaps remain (permission requirements, not-found behavior), but the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: notebook accepts a name or ID, email must be verbatim, and confirm is the mutation gate defaulting to false. It adds real meaning beyond the bare string/boolean schema types.

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?

States a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('a user's access to a notebook'), which naturally contrasts with the sibling share_set_user/share_set_access that grant access. It does not name the counterpart sibling explicitly, but the verb alone is enough to distinguish it.

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?

Explains the confirm-gated workflow clearly: call with confirm=False to preview, then re-submit with confirm=True to mutate. This tells the agent how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly route to alternatives (e.g., share_set_user for granting access).

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