share_set_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses the confirm-gated nature (needs_confirmation preview unless confirm=True), the upsert behavior, the notify email side effect with default, and the fact that permission cannot be OWNER. This goes well beyond minimum expectations.

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 concise yet information-dense. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a compact paragraph covering key behaviors and parameter semantics. No wasted words; each line adds value.

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 complexity (6 parameters, confirmation flow, upsert semantics) and the absence of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains key behavioral traits, parameter constraints, return values, and optional behaviors. The output schema further supplements return-value details, making this a well-rounded description.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers notebook (name or ID), email (upsert key), permission (editor/viewer), notify (default False, emails user), message (optional welcome note), and confirm (gating behavior). Defaults are stated and parameter roles are clear.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Grant or change a user's access to a notebook.' It further specifies the scope by mentioning notebook name/ID and permission values (editor/viewer), effectively distinguishing from relevant siblings like share_remove_user. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 the tool: it handles grants and permission changes via an upsert, and describes the confirmation flow. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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