share_set_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the confirmation gating for widening, that restricting/view_level are ungated, the application ordering (view_level before public) chosen to 'fail closed' on partial failure, and what is returned.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers parameter meaning and gating behavior in dense but non-wasteful sentences. Every sentence carries actionable signal with no padding.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description compensates thoroughly, and the return content is mentioned though an output schema already exists. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains all meaningful parameters: notebook (name or ID), public (True=anyone-with-link, False=restricted), view_level (full/chat), and the confirmation flow for confirm. The tie of the boolean 'confirm' to re-invoking with the canonical notebook_id is slightly implicit rather than explicit.

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+resource: 'Set a notebook's link-access settings.' This distinguishes it from the per-user sibling share_set_user by scoping to link-access rather than individual user shares, and it notes it accepts a notebook name or ID.

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 strong conditional guidance: widening via public=True returns a needs_confirmation preview requiring a confirm, while restricting and view_level changes are not gated. It does not explicitly contrast with the share_set_user sibling, so it falls short of full when/alternatives coverage.

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