share_set_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure and excels: it reveals the needs_confirmation preview for public widening, that restricting and view_level changes are not gated, that view_level is only echoed when set, and that fields apply in order with fail-closed behavior. This is exemplary transparency.

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 compact yet information-dense. Each sentence covers a distinct aspect—operation, parameters, gating behavior, return value, and edge-case ordering—without any filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity and the absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains return values (status or preview), partial-failure semantics, ordering of field application, and field-echo quirks. The existence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return structure.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: public is defined as True/False for anyone-with-link/restricted, view_level as full/chat, confirm as the override to the preview, and notebook as name or ID. Every parameter gains semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a notebook's link-access settings'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like share_set_user and share_remove_user which manage user-specific access. It precisely defines the scope of the operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to modify link-access settings) and explains the confirm gate for public widening. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full 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.