notebook_share_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action and return value but omits details such as authentication requirements, whether an email is sent, rate limits, or side effects.

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 brief and efficient, with a clear purpose statement followed by a structured Arg block. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and having 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: action, parameters, and return value ('Returns: success status'). The presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) supplements the return description. Minor gap: no mention of failure conditions.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the JSON schema by explaining `email` as 'Email address to invite' and `role` as '"viewer" or "editor" (default: viewer).' Even though schema coverage is 0%, this commentary clarifies parameter usage.

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 clearly states 'Invite a collaborator by email,' specifying the verb (invite) and resource (collaborator via email). Among siblings, there are `notebook_share_batch` and `notebook_share_public`, making this distinct.

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?

The description implies usage (to invite a collaborator by email) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `notebook_share_batch` or `notebook_share_public`. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given.

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